United States Department of Agriculture

Coconino National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume IIb. Chapter 3: Wildlife, Fish, and Plants; Glossary; 

and References

Forest 

Service

Coconino

National Forest

Southwestern Region MB-R3-04-32

March 2018
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations 

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

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

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

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

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

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

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

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

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

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than 

English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

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

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: 

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

i 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Coconino National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan 

Volume IIb. Chapter 3 (continued): Wildlife, Fish, and Plants; 

Glossary; and References

Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Calvin Joyner, Regional Forester

 333 Broadway Blvd., SE 

 Albuquerque, NM 87102 

 (505) 842-3292 

For Information Contact: Vernon Keller, Forest Planner

Coconino National Forest 

1824 South Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

(928) 527-3411

Abstract: To comply with the National Forest Management Act and address changes that have occurred 

over the past 30 years, the Coconino National Forest proposes to revise the current land management plan 

(1987 plan). This programmatic final environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents analysis of the 

impacts of four alternatives developed for programmatic management of the 1.8 million acres 

administered by the Coconino National Forest. The analysis displays the anticipated progress toward the 

desired conditions as well as the potential environmental and social consequences of implementing each 

alternative. Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which is the1987 forest plan, as amended. 

Alternative B (modified) is the preferred alternative and is reflected in the accompanying Final Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest. This alternative addresses new information 

and concerns received since the 1987 forest plan was published, and it meets objectives of Federal laws, 

regulations, and policies. Alternative C considers increases in the amount of wilderness and special areas, 

as well as increased opportunities for semi-primitive recreation. Alternative D considers fewer restrictions 

on human access, use, and infrastructure. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

iii

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Coconino National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan

Volume IIb. Chapter 3 (continued): Wildlife, Fish, and Plants; Glossary; and 

References

Table of Contents

Fine Filter: Sensitive and Other Planning Species .............................................................. 457

Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................ 710

Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................... 741

Cumulative Effects for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants ............................................................... 758

Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................................................... 765

Interdisciplinary Team Members ............................................................................................ 765

Federal, State, and Local Agencies ......................................................................................... 767

Others ...................................................................................................................................... 769

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement .................................................................. 771

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 773

References ................................................................................................................................... 787

Index ............................................................................................................................................ 821

List of Tables

Table 76. Analysis summary for agave species ........................................................................... 458

Table 77. Analysis summary for aquatic and riparian invertebrates ........................................... 464

Table 78. Analysis summary for cliff and cave-dwelling wildlife .............................................. 472

Table 79. Analysis summary for cliff and rocky outcrop plants ................................................. 478

Table 80. Analysis summary for desert species .......................................................................... 482

Table 81. Analysis summary for bald eagles and golden eagles ................................................. 494

Table 82. Analysis summary for Sensitive and Other fish species.............................................. 507

Table 83. Analysis summary for frogs and toads ........................................................................ 515

Table 84. Analysis summary for high-elevation fine filter plants ............................................... 527

Table 85. Analysis summary for pinyon juniper plants ............................................................... 534

Table 86. Analysis summary for ponderosa pine plant species ................................................... 544

Table 87. Analysis summary for Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly ......... 551

Table 88. Analysis summary for alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose .......... 558

Table 89. Analysis summary for Bebb's willow, Blumer’s dock, and Cochise sedge ................ 563

Table 90. Analysis summary for Bollanders’ quillwort and pond lily ........................................ 569

Table 91. Analysis summary for species associated with the Verde Formation ......................... 575

Table 92. Analysis summary for Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate 

phacelia ................................................................................................................................ 581

Table 93. Analysis summary for Allen’s lappet-browed bat ....................................................... 588

Table 94. Analysis summary for Arizona phlox.......................................................................... 596

Table 95. Analysis summary for Arizona sneezeweed ................................................................ 606

Table 96. Analysis summary for Arizona sunflower ................................................................... 612

Table 97. Analysis summary for black dropseed ........................................................................ 616

Table 98. Analysis summary for common black hawks .............................................................. 624

Table 99. Analysis summary for disturbed rabbitbrush .............................................................. 629
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

iv

Table 100. Analysis summary for Flagstaff pennyroyal ............................................................. 634

Table 101. Analysis summary for Gunnison’s prairie dog .......................................................... 640

Table 102. Analysis summary for MacDougal’s aletes ............................................................... 645

Table 103. Analysis summary for Metcalfe’s tick trefoil ............................................................ 652

Table 104. Analysis summary for Mogollon thistle .................................................................... 657

Table 105. Analysis summary for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort .................................................... 660

Table 106. Analysis summary for northern goshawk .................................................................. 667

Table 107. Analysis summary for Oak Creek triteleia ................................................................ 679

Table 108. Analysis summary for pronghorn .............................................................................. 686

Table 109. Analysis summary for Rusby’s milkvetch ................................................................ 691

Table 110. Analysis summary for southwestern myotis .............................................................. 698

Table 111. Analysis summary for western red bat ...................................................................... 704

Table 112. Management indicator species indicator habitat and the primary reasons for their 

selection. These apply to all alternatives. ............................................................................ 710

Table 113. Amount of pronghorn indicator habitat (ERU acreage), and existing departure1

 and 

trend relative to reference conditions for vegetation, fire, and soils for pronghorn indicator 

habitat ERUs ........................................................................................................................ 711

Table 114. Summary of existing grassland vegetation, fire regime, and soils departure1 and trend 

relative to reference conditions............................................................................................ 712

Table 115. Acres and percent of ERU restored or improved under alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D ................................................................................................................................... 717

Table 116. Grassland ERU acreage within recommended wilderness areas in alternative B 

(modified) ............................................................................................................................ 717

Table 117. Acres of pronghorn habitat within botanical and geological areas ........................... 717

Table 118. Additional grassland ERU acreage within recommended wilderness areas in 

alternative C ........................................................................................................................ 719

Table 119. Acres of pronghorn habitat within management areas where recreational shooting 

would not be suitable ........................................................................................................... 720

Table 120. Acres of grassland ERUs within alternative C management areas ........................... 721

Table 121. Summary of pronghorn indicator habitat, population and habitat trends, and acres of 

expected treatment by alternative ........................................................................................ 723

Table 122. Approximated amount of existing ponderosa pine old growth based on acreage in 

qualitative states that include very large trees ..................................................................... 724

Table 123. Existing ponderosa pine snags per acre ..................................................................... 724

Table 124. Approximated amount of ponderosa pine old growth. Existing and 15-year projection 

for alternatives. .................................................................................................................... 725

Table 125. Ponderosa pine snags per acre for existing condition and 15-year projection by 

alternative ............................................................................................................................ 725

Table 126. Summary of amount of pygmy nuthatch indicator habitat (old-growth ponderosa pine), 

and forestwide trends for habitat and populations by alternative ........................................ 734

Table 127. Amount of Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat (ERU acreage), and existing 

vegetative departure1 and trend relative to reference conditions ......................................... 735

Table 128. Summary of existing vegetation departure1 and trend relative to reference conditions.

 ............................................................................................................................................. 736

Table 129. Summary of amount of Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat, and population and 

habitat trends by alternative ................................................................................................. 741

Table 130. Coconino NF priority migratory birds ....................................................................... 741

Table 131. Ecological response unit (ERU) acreage within portions of important bird areas (IBA) 

on the forest ......................................................................................................................... 743
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

v 

Table 132. Additional ERU acreage within alternative C proposed wilderness ......................... 755

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

457

Fine Filter: Sensitive and Other Planning Species

This section discloses and compares the effects of four different alternatives on species on the 

Southwestern Region Sensitive species list and on other planning species, many of which are 

endemic or have restricted distributions. This section assesses how species viability would be 

maintained under each alternative. Detailed information for the habitats is located in volume I of 

this FEIS by resource, in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section above, and in the respective specialist 

reports.

Agave Species 

Phillip’s agave, Page Springs agave, Sacred Mountain agave, Tonto Basin agave 

These species are grouped together due to the similarity of these species (and their habitats) and 

their affinities for archaeological sites, which is the defining feature for the presence of these 

species. All four are Forest Service Sensitive species and all are pre-Columbian domesticates. The 

Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU habitats 

are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Phillip’s agave is central and northern Arizona, and it may have 

originated in the foothills of Sonora and/or Chihuahua, Mexico. Phillip’s agave grows on 

gravelly, stony basalt slopes, ridges, terraces and canyons.

Page Springs Agave is a narrow endemic, occurring at only a few sites near Page Springs and Loy 

Canyon where it is associated with archaeological sites and prehistoric field sites in Semi-desert 

Grasslands.

Sacred Mountain agave is endemic to central Arizona and occurs at several locations in the Verde 

Valley.

The known distribution of Tonto Basin agave is central Arizona. It usually occurs on the tops of 

benches, edges of slopes, and on gentle slopes overlooking major drainages and perennial streams 

in certain areas of the Verde Valley.

Habitat

The Phillip’s and Tonto Basin agaves occur in or near archaeological sites in Desert 

Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs. 

The Page Springs agave occurs in or near archaeological sites in Semi-desert Grassland and 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs. 

The Sacred Mountain agave occurs in or near archaeological sites in Desert Communities and 

Semi-desert Grassland ERUs. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

458

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distribution. They are vulnerable 

to perturbations in the environments such as ground-disturbing activities because of their small 

population sizes. Actions that compromise site stability and integrity of associated archaeology 

sites may also compromise these unique plants if they are present on the sites. Theft of plant parts 

or entire plants may also occur. The uniqueness of these species make them desirable to 

collectors. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 76 summarizes the viability analyses for Phillip’s, Tonto Basin, Page Springs, and Sacred 

Mountain agaves. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the 

Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat

condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species’ viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 76. Analysis summary for agave species

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Phillip’s agave, 

Tonto Basin agave 

(Both Sensitive)

Archaeological 

sites in SDG

Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward 

VH 

F Rank = F1* Archaeological 

sites in PJES

Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 

Archaeological 

sites in DC

Poor, away VH Poor, away VH 

Page Springs 

agave (Sensitive) Archaeological 

sites SDG

Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward 

VH 

F Rank = F1* Archaeological 

sites in PJES

Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

459

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Sacred Mountain 

agave (Sensitive, 

Endemic)

Archaeological 

sites SDG

Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward 

VH 

F Rank = F1* Archaeological 

sites in DC

Poor, away VH Poor, away VH 

Management Effect DC, SDG, and PJES = 3: 

Plan components maintain 

or improve protection and 

management for some 

habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat 

is maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and 

restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

All of these agave species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few 

populations known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all 

alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native 

species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 

206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-

103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). 

See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more 

information. 

Alternative A

Table 76 shows that under alternative A, Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub would trend away from desired conditions. Desert Communities would 

remain in poor condition due to increased density of shrubs and understory species. Semi-desert 

Grassland would remain in poor condition due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and 

increased fragmentation from urbanization. Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair 

condition, but because the fire return interval is also trending away, tree and shrub regeneration 

would increase. Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition 

with these agave species and facilitate a higher fire severity than these agaves had evolved with, 

thereby degrading agave habitat.

As shown in table 76, the likelihood that these agave species would be limited by their habitat on 

the forest is moderate-high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by combining these agave species’ F Ranks of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

460

variables for each ERU: Semi-desert Grassland (high), Desert Communities (high), and Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Desert 

Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, which means that 

plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the 

other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A provides outdated direction for Desert 

Communities and for a large portion of Semi-desert Grassland (in the Verde Valley Management 

Area). This outdated direction emphasizes range and forage improvement rather than 

composition, structure, and natural processes as in the desired conditions. This alternative also 

emphasizes using methods such as soil scarification and broadcast seeding, which could facilitate 

the establishment of invasive plant species that compete with native species and can facilitate the 

spread of wildfire to which Desert Communities is not adapted. 

A plan component in the Verde Valley Management Area that recommends review of soil 

potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment is positive, however, for areas 

containing the Verde Formation. Mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe 

impairment of soil productivity. Another positive plan component in this same management area

would improve conditions on prioritized watersheds in unsatisfactory condition in the Verde 

Valley Management Area. This could move degraded areas toward desired conditions, depending 

on the methods used. 

Alternative A also does not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three 

pinyon juniper types that differ in composition, structure, and processes. There is one broad 

vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper and plan direction varies by slope. Consequently, 

vegetation structure would not be equitably distributed across the landscape. As a result, Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub’s unique composition and structure is not addressed in this alternative.

Alternative A contains no specific desired conditions for Desert Communities. About 87 percent 

of the ERU is included in the Verde Valley Management Area (MA 11) with the remaining 

percentage spread throughout nine management areas. The management emphasis for MA 11 is 

watershed condition, range management, wildlife habitat for upland game birds, and dispersed 

recreation (1987 Plan, page 166). The different types of grasslands differ in composition, 

structure, and processes and are not differentiated in alternative A. Vegetation quality is expected 

to trend away from desired conditions primarily due to the lack of plan objectives in this 

alternative, thus tree and shrub cover would continue to increase and understory would decrease 

in abundance and vigor. The different pinyon juniper types are differentiated on the basis of slope 

instead of composition, structure, and processes. Consequently, managers lack specific guidance 

for the ERUs that support these agaves. Alternative A also lacks guidance that would assist with 

controlling illegal collecting of agaves. Even though guidance for the habitats is outdated or has 

different emphasis, these species would still be addressed during site-specific projects because 

they are Southwestern Region sensitive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

461

Alternative B (modified)

Table Table 76 summarizes and compares the analyses for Phillip’s agave, Tonto Basin agave, 

Page Springs agave, and Sacred Mountain agave. This table shows that under alternative B 

(modified), Semi-desert Grassland would remain in poor condition, but would trend slightly 

toward desired conditions primarily due to plan objectives that would remove tree and shrub 

cover and create more open conditions. Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair 

condition, but trend away from desired conditions because the plan objectives would be 

insufficient to outpace growth and reproduction in the ERU. Desert Communities would also 

remain in poor condition and would trend away from desired conditions primarily because shrub 

and understory growth is anticipated to continue. 

As shown in table 76, the likelihood that these agave species would be limited by their habitat on 

the forest is moderate-high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by combining these agave species’ F Ranks of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Semi-desert Grassland (high), Desert Communities (high), and Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for the habitats 

associated with Phillip’s agave, Tonto Basin agave, Page Springs agave, and Sacred Mountain 

agave. This means that plan components in alternatives B (modified), C, and D maintain or 

improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. This rating is due to these alternatives 

containing explicit and updated direction for Semi-desert Grassland and Desert Communities. 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this rating is because these alternatives clearly distinguish 

between different Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides desired conditions, objectives 

and guidance that are specific to the each type. Management direction would promote properly 

functioning ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote 

characteristic disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote 

balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems, thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERUAll-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying 

seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances 

(FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5-9; G-1-3, 5). There is additional direction for this ERU within the 

wildland-urban interface. Within WUI, fire and vegetation management would favor lowintensity surface fires despite the historic fire regime that favors high-severity (and typically 

high-intensity) fires (FW-WUI-DC-8). This is intended to mitigate the risks to surrounding 

communities. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses species’ 

specific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution: 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and 

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

462

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

The defining feature for these species is the close association with archaeological sites, 

particularly ancient fields. The desired conditions for Heritage Resources (FW-Hrtg-DC 1, 2 and 

4) address protection, site integrity, and theft of heritage resources. These components also 

provide protection for the biological features on the sites including the agaves associated with 

them.

In contrast to alternative A, guidance in Wildlife, Fish, and Plants (FW-WFP-G-16) specifically 

applies to agaves by limiting the harvest of stalks to research and traditional tribal uses helping to 

preserve the fruits and seeds of agaves. The stalks of agaves are also important to unique 

invertebrates that are associated with them such as carpenter bees, which are native pollinators 

and contribute to ecosystem services. Alternative B (modified) includes a desired condition that 

addresses the presence of native invertebrates including pollinators (FW-Eco-DC-4). Preserving 

stalks of agaves and other suitable habitats for native insects will help preserve the habitats for 

pollinator insects. 

Illegal collecting can be problematic for plants in general and has been noted in certain areas 

containing agaves and other desert plants. This can affect individuals of many species. Forestwide 

guidance in forest products in alternative B (modified) (FW-Fprod-DC-1 and 3, FW-Fprod-G-3 

and 4) would help control illegal collecting. This guidance is not present in alternative A.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same consequences as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same consequences as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Phillip’s agave, Tonto Basin agave, Page Springs agave, and Sacred Mountain 

agave, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses or illegal activities 

such as damage to archaeological sites or plant collection. Consequently, none of the alternatives 

would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for Phillip’s agave, Tonto Basin agave, Page Springs 

agave, and Sacred Mountain agave, which are Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these species than alternative A. Plan 

components for Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grasslands, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub ERUs provide better protection for these habitats and updated plan language for at-risk and 

rare species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

463

Aquatic and Riparian Invertebrates

A caddisfly (Lepidostoma knulli), a caddisfly (Wormaldia planae), a mayfly (Moribaetis. 

mimbresaurus), Fossil springsnail, Arizona snaketail (a dragonfly), Persephone’s darner 

(a dragonfly), and Redrock stonefly.

These species are grouped together because they share similar habitats and threats. These habitats

(e.g., springs, streams, riparian forest types) are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat

section.

Affected Environment 

L. knulli, W. planae, M. mimbresaurus, and Fossil springsnails are Forest Service sensitive 

species. The others are classified as other planning species. L. knulli, Arizona snaketail, and 

Persephone’s darner are endemic species. W. planae, M. mimbresaurus, and redrock stonefly are 

considered to have restricted distributions, and fossil springsnail is a narrowly endemic species.

Distribution

L. knulli is found in higher elevation, forested habitats in northern Arizona and is found on the 

Coconino NF along Oak Creek from Sedona upstream to Pumphouse Wash, 14.5 stream miles.

W. planae is present on the Coconino NF in the Fossil Creek-Verde River 5th HUC watershed 

(10.7 potential perennial stream miles). It is typically found only in the Fossil Creek and Wet 

Beaver Creek. 

M. mimbresaurus is the only species in its genus north of Mexico. It has only been gathered twice 

(2007 and 2014) from a pool at the confluence of Pumphouse Wash in Oak Creek (Stevens and 

Ledbetter 2014); it has also been collected from a spring next to Oak Creek (Spring Stewardship 

Institute 2016). 

Fossil springsnails are present on the Coconino NF in the Fossil Creek-Verde River 5th HUC 

watershed (10.7 potential perennial stream miles). It is endemic to only two spring complexes, 

one near the town of Strawberry in Gila County, and the second being Fossil Springs in Yavapai 

County, on the Coconino NF (Stevens and Ledbetter 2014). 

Arizona snaketail is endemic to the Mogollon Rim in Arizona and western New Mexico and is 

typically found in elevations ranging from 4,900 to 8,200 feet. It has been found along Oak Creek 

on the forest. 

Persephone’s darner is endemic to northeastern Mexico and the southwestern United States 

(Stevens and Ledbetter 2014) and is typically found in elevations ranging from 1,800 to 

7,500 feet. It has been found along Oak Creek on the forest. 

Redrock stonefly is known from Wet Beaver Creek on the forest (Smith 2015). It has been found 

in and along partially shaded desert and mid-elevation streams within and near lower Oak Creek, 

Page Springs, and upper-middle Tonto Creek in Arizona on lands of other ownership. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

464

Habitat

L. knulli, M. mimbresaurus, Fossil springsnails, Arizona snaketail, Persephone’s darner, and 

Redrock stonefly are all associated with springs, perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian 

Forest, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. 

M. mimbresaurus is associated with perennial and intermittent streams, springs, Cottonwood 

Willow Riparian Forest, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest.

W. planae are associated with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is a threat to all of these species because they are only known from a few locations.

Environmental Consequences

Table 77 summarizes the viability analyses for seven aquatic and riparian invertebrate species: L. 

knulli, M. mimbresaurus, W. planae, fossil springsnail, Arizona snaketail, Persephone’s darner, 

and Redrock stonefly. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the 

Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat 

condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 

Table 77. Analysis summary for aquatic and riparian invertebrates

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, and 

F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

A caddisfly (L. knulli), 

Fossil springsnail 

(Sensitive) 

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

H Fair**, slowly 

toward

H 

Arizona snaketail, 

Persephone’s darner, 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H

Redrock stonefly 

(Other)

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

M-H

F Rank = F2* MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

M-H Good, slowly 

toward 

M-H 

A caddisfly (W. 

planae) (Sensitive)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H

F Rank = F?* CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

M

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

M Good, slowly 

toward 

M 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

465

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, and 

F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

A mayfly (M. 

mimbresaurus)

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

H Fair**, slowly 

toward

H 

(Sensitive) Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H 

F Rank = F2* Intermittent 

streams

Poor, static Accessible: 

H 

Inaccessible: 

M_H

Poor, slowly 

toward

Accessible: 

H 

Inaccessible: 

M_H

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

M-H

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

M-H Good, slowly 

toward 

M-H

Management Effect Springs and perennial streams = 

4: Decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few.

Intermittent streams, CWRF, 

MBDRF = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or 

improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving 

protection and management 

for most habitat and habitat 

element occurrences in the 

plan area.

*F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. F? = Present on the forest but 

abundance information is insufficient to develop risk.

**For analysis, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or good condition 

depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Common to All Alternatives 

All of these species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute 

to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would employ either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

466

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions, 

habitat for aquatic and riparian species, and connected downstream resources. See p. 23, 71, 72, 

72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1, and FW-WFP-O4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4, and FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8. 

Instream flow water rights would be maintained and procured at similar levels under all 

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74 and 206 and FW-Water-G-3). Procurement of instream flow 

water rights would improve the extent of uninterrupted streamflows across NFS lands, thereby 

providing greater aquatic and riparian habitat continuity and resilience.

All alternatives provide language for monitoring, including the use of aquatic macroinvertebrates 

as monitoring indicators for condition of waterways and riparian areas. Water quality monitoring 

using the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality standards is also supported under all 

alternatives.

Alternative A

Table 77 shows that under alternative A, springs would remain in fair condition with a trend 

slowly toward desired conditions. Accessible, unprotected springs would remain in poor 

condition, while springs that are inaccessible, protected, or undeveloped would remain in good 

condition. 

Intermittent streamcourses would remain in poor condition with a static trend relative to desired 

conditions mainly due to roads crossing the drainages and contributing sediment to connected 

waters. Perennial streams would remain in poor condition with a static trend in relation to desired 

conditions. This condition is generally due to most streams having invasive and non-native 

animal species that are outside of their historic variability. 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. All of these riparian forest types 

would mostly have a static trend or slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow, 

some portions of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, and Spring Creek, would be static due to 

high recreation or private land. In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, static trends are 

associated with the Oak Creek 5th code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. Trends that are 

slowly toward desired conditions are associated with the Beaver Creek and the Fossil CreekLower Verde River 5th code HUCs except portions of Fossil Creek have a trend away from 

desired conditions where recreation use is high. 

As shown in table 77, the likelihood that these aquatic and riparian invertebrate species would be 

limited by their habitat on the forest is moderate to high depending on the habitat. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining these species’ F Ranks of F2 or F? with the likelihood of 

habitat limitation variables for each habitat: springs (high), perennial streamcourses (high),

intermittent streamcourses (high if accessible, moderate if inaccessible), Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest (high), and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9 in 

volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

467

perennial streams, which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or 

lack of management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be 

few. For springs, desired conditions and guidelines are largely lacking therefore managers do not 

have clear direction when restoring or protecting springs or to maintain or restore toward desired 

condition of properly functioning, resilient springs and spring riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). For perennial streams, language is largely lacking for invasive and non-native 

aquatic species that were not present historically. These species can alter the composition, 

structure and processes of stream ecosystems. As described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section, 

the threat of dispersed recreation to riparian resources is not addressed forestwide in alternative 

A. Special areas such as the Verde Wild and Scenic River and wilderness, and the management 

areas within Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Area and the Sedona-Oak Creek Planning Area most 

specifically address the conflicts and strategies to resolve resource damage in riparian areas. This 

direction mainly addresses dispersed recreations impact to specific riparian areas where there 

have been past conflicts and resource damage, but it provides very limited direction when areas 

that previously received low use are “discovered” and see unexpected increases in recreation, 

such as Fossil Creek. As a result, alternative A addresses this threat sporadically compared with 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D, but it does mitigate some of the areas where the conflict is 

most pronounced. 

The management effect is classified as a 3 for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and intermittent streamcourses which means that plan 

components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the other 

alternatives.

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests and intermittent streamcourses because 

it has a focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian 

vegetation, stream banks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition 

as soon as possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language 

includes the following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and 

exceptions such as utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the 

extent and magnitude of impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression 

may be used to prevent resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse 

impacts to riparian habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas 

through land exchange is a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage 

commercial uses, and recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-

10, 22, 26, and 39). 

This alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the 

other alternatives because desired conditions for specific riparian forest types are lacking and 

there is not a focus on functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 77 shows that under alternative B (modified) springs would remain in fair condition with a 

trend slowly toward desired conditions, like alternative A. Perennial streams would remain in 

poor condition but the trend would be toward desired conditions because of updated plan 

components (see management effect discussion below). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

468

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would improve to good condition and trend slowly toward 

desired conditions except portions of the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek and Dry Beaver 

Creek would improve faster (i.e., have a trend toward desired conditions).

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and would slowly 

move toward desired conditions except portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would 

remain static in areas of high recreation use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the 

Beaver Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUCs.

As shown in table 77, the likelihood that these aquatic and riparian invertebrate species would be 

limited by their habitat on the forest is moderate to high depending on the habitat. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining these species’ F Ranks of F2 or F? with the likelihood of 

habitat limitation variables for each habitat: springs (high), perennial streamcourses (high), 

intermittent streamcourses (high if accessible, moderate if inaccessible), CWRF (moderate), and 

MBDRF (moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within 

the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 

filter habitats associated with these aquatic and riparian species. This means that plan components 

in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For springs, this rating is because alternative B (modified) has desired conditions and guidelines 

to guide spring management on the forest (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, 2, 3, 4 and FW-Rip-Spr-G-1, 2, 3, 

4) whereas these are largely absent in alternative A. 

For perennial streams, this rating is based on language regarding mitigating the effects of roads 

and promoting connectivity within drainages and between streamcourses and upland habitats, 

(See FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 7 and 9 and the Connectivity topic in the Wildlife and Plants Topics and 

Issues section). Although there are three recommended wildernesses, only the Davey’s 

recommended wilderness area connects to perennial water, Fossil Creek. Guidelines for 

recommended wilderness would lessen the effects of roads by restricting motorized use except for 

limited permitted and administrative use and promoting trails for mechanized and non-motorized 

use (SA-RWild-G-3, 5). This is beneficial for connected waters and habitat for these species 

because roads can alter natural water flow patterns and natural sediment levels. 

More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water 

quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2). Also, alternative B (modified) has a guideline that 

balances recreation activities, permitted uses, and management activities with soil function, 

riparian vegetation, and water quality at the stream reach scale (FW-Rip-RipType-G-3). This 

guideline would not apply to fine scale activities and facilities such as intermittent livestock 

crossing locations, water gaps, or other infrastructure used to manage impacts to riparian areas at 

a larger scale. This guideline is intended to protect riparian function, especially in areas of high 

recreation use such as Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, and Fossil Creek.

Alternative B (modified) has desired conditions that protect riparian resources including soil 

conditions and water quality while recognizing the demand for and need to properly manage the 

public’s dispersed recreation opportunities. A forestwide desired condition for dispersed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

469

recreation supports managing dispersed recreation to avoid resource damage (FW-Rec-Disp-DC3) Several guidelines about dispersed recreation would manage trails, camping, and recreation 

types to prevent further resource damage to riparian resources (FW-Rec-Disp-G-1 to 5). 

Plan components in alternative B (modified) specify that livestock grazing maintains desired 

conditions of plant communities (FW-Graz-DC-2; FW-Graz-G-2). They also protect and 

minimize impacts to riparian areas by recommending that livestock use be restricted to the 

dormant season, recommending utilization levels on woody vegetation, maintenance of adequate 

vegetative cover to protect streambanks, and state that riparian areas are rarely negatively 

impacted by livestock (FW-Graz-G-7). This would maintain riparian structure, composition, and 

promote proper functioning. Guidelines are in place to reduce cattle concentrations and 

sedimentation into connected waters by specifying that range improvements should not interfere 

with riparian function and rare species, and further specifies a minimum distance of salts and 

supplements from riparian areas (FW-Graz-G-4 and 5). 

Alternative B (modified) addresses uncharacteristic flooding by maintaining natural hydrographs 

through time and by promoting riparian forest composition and structure that would reduce the 

effects of flooding (FW-Rip-Strm-DC-4, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-2). For stream riparian areas, 

functional riparian areas and herbaceous vegetation provide protection from uncharacteristic 

wildfire and flooding disturbance, resiliency, and should filter sediment and protect water quality 

(FW-RIP-RipType-DC-2, 3, 4). This alternative also contains a guideline that protects riparian 

resources by recommending against issuing a lands and recreation special-use permit for activities 

proposed to occur within 200 feet of perennial streams, springs, or waters that contribute to or 

support sensitive resources, such as federally listed or Southwestern Region sensitive species 

(FW-SpecUse-G-3). 

For Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests, this rating is 

primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that support the 

composition, structure, and function of riparian forest types (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6, FWRip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional condition would improve faster than 

alternative A, especially along the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver 

Creek. Plan components manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function (FW-Rip-RipTypeDC-1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and 

Plants section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) specifically supports conditions for endemic, rare, 

or specialized species in springs. Alternative B (modified) also has language that better addresses 

species specific threats: i.e. rarity and invasive or non-native animals. Plan language in alternative 

B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would provide microsites and refugia for species 

with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would provide the resiliency and redundancy 

necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and 

management activities should be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life 

cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly 

endemic species and species with restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FWWFP-G-10). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

470

Alternative B (modified) better addresses the threat of invasive species and disease than 

alternative A by supporting native species and addressing disease and invasive, non-native species 

forestwide (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-Eco-DC-1, FW-Water-DC-6 and G-6, FW-Rip-Strm-G-1, FWRip-Spr-DC-2, FW-Rip-RipType-DC2, 6, and G-2, and FW-TerrERU-All-G-3). The plan 

components for invasive species can be applied to any non-native plant or animal on the forest. 

The forestwide desired conditions for invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1 and 2) and guidelines 

(FW-Invas-G-1 through 3) apply to all organisms. Unlike alternative A, invasive species guidance 

is incorporated in many portions of this alternative. A forestwide desired condition states that 

non-native invasive plants and non-native or invasive aquatic organisms are not established or 

transported around these high use areas of the forest, which is particularly beneficial for several 

of these species because they are adjacent to developed campgrounds (FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9). A 

forestwide guideline provides guidance for controlling invasive species at these sites before they 

become established and widespread (FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife and the analyses under the Coarse Filter: Habitat and 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide for the viability of L. 

knulli, M. mimbresaurus, W. planae, Fossil springsnail, Arizona snaketail, Persephone’s darner, 

and Redrock stonefly, although individuals may be impacted by management activities or 

permitted uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for L. knulli, M. mimbresaurus, W. planae, and Fossil springsnail, which are Forest Service 

sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these 

species than alternative A particularly because these alternatives have updated language for at-risk 

species, especially for species like these with limited ranges. Due to the lack of specificity of plan 

language for endemic or restricted distribution species, springs, and the different riparian forest 

types, continued implementation of alternative A would provide for lower viability for these 

species on the forest compared to the other alternatives. 

Cliff and Cave-dwelling Wildlife

American peregrine falcons, Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, and spotted bat. 

These species are grouped together because they share similar habitats. All three species are 

classified as Southwestern Region Forest Service sensitive species. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Peregrines use a wide range of elevations and habitats. There are a total of 28 known nesting pairs 

of peregrine falcons that occur on the Coconino, some of which overlap with other forests or state 

parks. In addition to being found in greater numbers than in the 1950s and 1960s, Arizona’s 

peregrines are being found in areas that formerly would have been considered marginal. This 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

471

suggests that populations may have reached levels saturating the optimal habitat available, and 

new breeding pairs are forced to breed in sub-optimal areas (Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2002). 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats occur throughout the west in a wide variety of habitats and 

elevations. They produce one young per year and maternity colonies range in size from a few 

individuals to several hundred individuals. They may migrate locally along an altitudinal 

gradient. Winter hibernating colonies may be of mixed gender and of varying sizes. They forage 

over large distances. They have been found in caves, sinkholes, and fissures on and near the 

forest. 

Spotted bats occur throughout the West in a wide variety of habitats and elevations. Broadly 

distributed, spotted bats are rarely common but may be locally abundant in some areas, such as 

the Arizona/Utah border. Winter range and hibernacula are unknown for most of its range. 

Habitat

The essential habitat for peregrine falcon includes rock cliffs for nesting, for vantage points to 

look for prey, and a foraging area with sufficient abundance of prey. Suitable nesting sites on rock 

cliffs have a mean height of 200 to 300 feet, often in canyons. 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats and spotted bats: These species roost primarily in cliffs and 

caves. Spotted bats roost as individuals or in small groups in cracks, crevices, and caves, usually 

high in cliffs.

Risk Factors

Peregrines: Individual breeding pairs and young may be impacted by disturbance during the 

breeding season from human activities such as rock climbing, recreational shooting, and 

overflights. 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats and spotted bats: The primary risk factor for both species is 

disturbance. An additional risk factor for Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats is disease. Townsend’s 

are very sensitive to human disturbance and may abandon roost sites after human visitation. 

Recreational rock climbing could cause roost disturbance for spotted bats in some areas, should 

this species roost on the forest. Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats have tested positive for whitenose syndrome disease, but no diagnostic signs have been documented. 

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section has more detail about Non-Native or Invasive 

Species, and Motor Vehicle Disturbance and Disturbance in General. 

Table 78 summarizes the viability analyses for American peregrine falcon, Pale Townsend’s bigeared bat, and spotted bat. This table was developed using the analysis process described under 

the Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat 

condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

472

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 

Table 78. Analysis summary for cliff and cave-dwelling wildlife

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Peregrine falcon 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F4*

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

Pale Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

(Sensitive)

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

F Rank = F3* Caves Good, static L Good, static L 

Spotted bat

(Sensitive)

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

F Rank= FN* Caves Good, static L Good, static L 

Management effects Cliffs = 4: There is a decline in 

habitat quality as a result of 

management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few. 

Caves = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration 

to some occurrences.

Management Effect = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. 

*F4 = Common on the forest within its habitat. *F3=Uncommon on the forest within its habitat. *FN = Occurs on the forest, 

but no breeding population is documented on the forest.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

473

All alternatives have seasonal closures in habitat for American peregrine falcons, spotted bats, 

and Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats, which would provide habitat with reduced disturbance from 

motorized activities. This would be beneficial for reproduction and survival. The seasonal 

closures are Pine Grove, Rattlesnake, and Woody Ridge (1987 Plan, pages 59, 206-114, Off-Road 

Driving Management Plan (map) for Land and Resource Management Planning (Revised May 

1991; FW-Rec-Disp-G-6, MA-PineBelt-DC- 5,6,7,8, MA-LkMary-DC-4,MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 

4, and MA-LkMary-S-1).

All alternatives have guidelines that would protect the habitat for all three of these species in the 

vicinity of Walnut Canyon. These would be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of these 

species and would benefit the habitat for their prey species. These guidelines would protect the 

natural and cultural resources in the urban/wildland interface and the lands surrounding the 

(Walnut Canyon) National Monument. See 1987 Plan pages 206-109, MA-Walnut-G-1. 

All alternatives would protect caves and areas immediately adjacent from unnatural disturbances 

such as seismic disturbances and drilling. All alternatives would evaluate or utilize a 300-foot 

buffer around caves to protect cave and karst resources and ecology, and visitor impacts would be 

managed to maintain the values of significant caves. Collectively these plan components would 

maintain the microclimate, airflow, chemical, physical, and biological conditions within the cave 

necessary for bat roosting, overwintering, reproduction and survival (1987 Plan, page 51-2, FWBioPhys-Geo-G-2, 3, 4, and S-1). 

Alternative A

Table 78 shows that under alternative A, cliffs and caves would remain in good condition and 

have a static trend with regard to desired conditions. The condition and trend for caves is based 

on an assumption that any cave used by these species would be rarely visited, and therefore, in 

good condition and likely to remain in that condition. 

As shown in table 78, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

cliff and cave-dwelling species is low. This likelihood was derived by combining these species’ F 

Ranks of F3, F4, FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable: cliffs (low) and caves (low

assuming inaccessible, rarely visited, resources in good condition) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to 

moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for caves, which 

means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species 

than the other alternatives. The management effect is classified as a 4 for cliffs, which means 

there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result 

from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

Alternative A lacks explicit plan components for cliffs, nesting, and roosting habitat for these 

species. Consequently, alternative A contributes less to the viability of these species than the other 

alternatives.

Alternative A contains plan language beneficial for peregrine falcons that could also be beneficial 

for the other cliff-dwelling species in locations where they share habitat with peregrine falcons. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

474

It includes plan language in the Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem Area to work with air tour 

companies and rock climbers to eliminate disturbing activities near occupied eyries during the 

peregrine falcon breeding season (March 1 to August 31); and guidelines for specific buffers 

depending on the disturbance (including smoke from fires) (1987 Plan, pages 206-11 through 13). 

There is similar guidance in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem Area (page 206-67, 116) and 

forestwide direction to reduce disturbance to nesting peregrines on page 64-1. 

Particularly beneficial plan components for cave-dwelling species include conserving wildlife 

habitat provided by caves; preventing contamination of water draining into, issue from or are 

contained within caves, and protecting cave resources (1987 Plan, pages 22, 51-2). Caves used or 

recently used by bat populations would be managed to maintain or enhance these populations 

1987 Plan, page 51-1). In addition, alternative A has standards and guidelines to examine 

activities near or within a cave areas for potential impacts to caves and karst features including 

adding nutrients or other chemicals (including pesticides that could impact bats or their prey) 

(1987 Plan, page 51-2). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 78 shows that under alternative B (modified), cliffs and caves would remain in good 

condition and have a static trend with regard to desired conditions, the same as alternative A. The 

condition and trend for caves is based on an assumption that any cave used by these species 

would be rarely visited, and therefore, in good condition and likely to remain in that condition. 

As shown in table 78, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

cliff and cave-dwelling species is low. This likelihood was derived by combining these species’ F 

Ranks of F3, F4, and FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable: cliffs (low) and caves 

(low assuming inaccessible, rarely visited, resources in good condition) (table 9 in volume IIa). 

Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the 

habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for both habitats, 

which means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat 

element occurrences in the plan area.

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has desired conditions, guidelines, and 

management approaches that would be beneficial for cliff-dwelling species and their habitat and 

these apply forestwide rather than specific areas like in alternative A. Alternative B (modified) 

has desired conditions that would promote biophysical features such as cliffs and caves to be 

generally undisturbed by human activities and their associated geological, hydrological, and 

biological resources would be maintained (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). Another desired condition 

promotes specialized habitats for a variety of plant and animals species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC6). A guideline in the section for Geological Features states that projects should be designed and 

uses should be managed to maintain the integrity and function of cliffs and caves and where 

alteration of these resources cannot be avoided, they should be mitigated to mimic predisturbance conditions and function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). Desired conditions in the Anderson 

Mesa, Long Valley, and Pine Belt Management Areas would specifically be beneficial for 

peregrines because they would promote management so functioning wetlands provide foraging 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

475

habitat for peregrine falcons, as well as other raptors (MA-AMesa-DC-4, MA-LongV-DC-6, MAPineBelt-DC-1). 

Alternative B (modified) has a management approach in the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants 

to remind managers that a one-size-fits-all buffer to reduce disturbance may not be the best 

solution for all species and circumstances and best available science should be used for sitespecific decisions. Less tolerant species like peregrines may need a one-half-mile buffer where 

more tolerant species may only need 300 feet. Another management approach in this same 

section reminds managers to collaborate with the Federal Aviation Administration, airport 

administrations, air tour operators, military and government agencies, and other aircraft operators 

to minimize disturbances caused by aircraft over key wildlife areas during important times of 

their life cycle. Examples could include peregrine falcon nesting sites and big game wintering 

habitat. 

Some particularly beneficial plan components for cave-dwelling species include desired 

conditions in the section on Geological Features that would provide habitat for species that 

require specialized niches for roosting and overwintering and disease within natural levels. Other 

desired conditions promote protection and maintenance of subterranean microclimate and 

ecology, and promotes quantity and quality of water within and entering caves within the natural 

range of variability. See FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-2, 3, 4 and G-8. Beneficial guidelines include 

maintenance and protection of the chemical, physical, and biological conditions of cave resources 

and protection of endemic cave species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-2, 4, and 7). Guidelines also 

promote management of caves to prevent disturbance, spread of disease, and the use of wildlifefriendly gates that meet Bat Conservation International recommendations (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G- 5 

and 6). Another guideline in the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants requires managers to follow 

established protocols to prevent the introduction and spread of disease, a particularly beneficial 

guideline for bats (FW-WFP-G-12). 

A guideline in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant section would protect bats and their prey by ensuring 

that projects include measures to minimize the negative impact of pesticides and other chemicals 

to species and their habitat, including chemical-free buffers around bat roosts, riparian, or aquatic 

habitat (FW-WFP-G-4). 

A guideline in alternative B (modified) requires timing restrictions to be applied to projects and 

activities that have the potential to negatively affect Southwestern Region sensitive species (FWWFP-G-8). This guideline addresses the disturbance risk factor for these species and should result 

in higher levels of survival and successful reproduction. 

Alternative B (modified) has several other guidelines that would maintain or protect habitat for 

these species, contribute to their viability, and preclude the need for listing. Management 

activities would comply with species conservation agreements, assessments, strategies, or 

national guidelines and projects and activities would be managed to maintain or improve habitat 

for native species and to prevent or reduce the likelihood of introduction or spread of disease 

(FW-WFP-G-2 and 3). Other beneficial guidelines promote structural improvements that provide 

wildlife with safe use of water (especially important for bats), promote the use of fire suppression 

techniques that minimize habitat and disturbance impacts where there are Southwestern Region 

sensitive species (consistent with public and firefighter safety), and promote the design and 

implementation of projects and activities that maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of 

Southwestern Region sensitive species (FW-WFP-G-5, 9, and 10). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

476

Alternative B (modified) recommends 3 wildernesses that could be used for foraging. Plan 

components for recommended wilderness would be beneficial for these species because 

recommended wilderness would be managed to maintain or enhance primitive and undeveloped 

characteristics; to preserve native species and unique features; to reduce evidence of modern 

human control and manipulations; and motor vehicle uses should only occur for limited 

administrative and permitted activities to be consistent with wilderness character (FW-RWildDC-1 to 3; FW-RWild-G-1 and 3). Recommended wildernesses would provide additional areas of 

low disturbance, but the recommended wilderness would also preclude restoration treatments that 

would require motorized equipment. With this restriction on motorized equipment, the forest

would be less likely to conduct restoration treatments, which, over time, could increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire or slow the trend toward desired conditions in these areas.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except there are more areas that are 

not suitable for recreational shooting than the other alternatives; there are more acres of 

recommended wilderness than the other alternatives, and there are management areas in which 

reduction of disturbance to habitat (by restricting public access) is emphasized. All of these areas 

are suitable for peregrine falcon foraging and as potential habitat for the other cliff dwelling 

species. Cliffs in the recommended wildernesses have known or suitable habitat for eyries. 

Collectively, this alternative would provide the least disturbance to these species and their prey, 

particularly peregrine falcons. These factors are further discussed in the section on Disturbance 

under Wildlife Issues and Topics above. 

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except there are no recommended 

wildernesses, which could provide areas of reduced disturbance for cliff-dwelling species.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives will provide for

the viability of American peregrine falcons, pale Townsend’s big-eared bats, and spotted bats, 

although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of 

the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for American peregrine falcons, pale 

Townsend’s big-eared bats, and spotted bats, which are Forest Service sensitive species. 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these species than 

alternative A primarily because they contain plan components for cliffs (which are absent in 

alternative A) and updated plan language for disease. Alternative C would provide slightly higher 

viability for these species than the other alternative because it contributes more to reducing 

disturbance. Alternative A provides lower viability for these species than the other alternatives 

because it generally lacks direction for cliffs. However, that is mitigated somewhat because it 

does have an overarching goal to maintain viability for wildlife which allows considerable 

flexibility for managers. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

477

Cliffs and Rocky Outcrop Plants

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake, Rock fleabane, Senator Mine alumroot, Fossil Creek bedstraw, 

black spleenwort, ebony spleenwort, and Utah bladderfern

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake, rock fleabane and Senator Mine alumroot are classified as Southwestern 

Region Forest Service Sensitive species. Fossil Creek bedstraw, black spleenwort, ebony 

spleenwort, and Utah bladderfern are classified as Other planning species. 

Affected Environment

Distribution

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake is a rare fern that is narrowly endemic and is limited to a few locations in 

the Fay Canyon area of Sedona. 

Rock fleabane is endemic to northern and central Arizona. The known locations include 

Barbershop Canyon, East Clear Creek, Mount Elden., Oak Creek Canyon, Tule Canyon, Walnut 

Canyon, West Fork of Oak Creek Canyon and Sycamore Canyon. 

Senator Mine alumroot is endemic to central Arizona. Cliff habitats in some areas of the forest

could potentially support this species. A recent revision of the genus Heuchera by Folk and 

Alexander (2015) updated the taxonomy of many specimens including those collected within the 

boundaries of the Coconino NF. As a result of the changes in taxonomy, there are no documented 

locations for this Forest Service sensitive species on the forest. 

The endemic Fossil Creek bedstraw is native to central Arizona and occurs in the Fossil Creek 

area on the Coconino NF and adjacent Tonto NF. Predictive modelling for Fossil Creek bedstraw 

estimates a much larger range for the species including much of the Mogollon Rim.

Black spleenwort is a rare fern that is primarily known from Europe, with rare occurrences in the 

United States. It is of hybrid origin and was formed from two European parents. There are only a 

few occurrences of this species on the Coconino NF where it grows on dacite flows of Mount 

Elden. 

Ebony spleenwort is a rare fern that is an ecological generalist. It has a disjunct distribution, 

occurring in southern Africa as well as in the United States. There are only a few occurrences of 

this species on the Coconino NF where it grows on dacite flows of Mount Elden. 

Utah bladderfern occurs on Mount Elden and Munds Mountain. There are also several collections 

in Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

Habitat

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake occurs on cliffs in canyons, ravines on rocky slopes and ledges in thin, 

sandy soil associated with sandstone outcrops. 

Rock fleabane prefers Coconino sandstone cliffs and known locations include Barbershop 

Canyon, East Clear Creek, Mount Elden, Oak Creek Canyon, Tule Canyon, Walnut Canyon, West 

Fork of Oak Creek Canyon and Sycamore Canyon. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

478

Senator Mine alumroot potential habitat includes moist slopes in ponderosa pine forests and 

canyons where it typically grows on slopes or cliffs.

Fossil Creek bedstraw grows at the bases of steep cliffs and in rocky crevices. 

Black spleenwort’s preferred habitat is cliffs.

Ebony spleenwort habitats include forest floors, rocks, masonry and disturbed soils but is only 

known from dacite flows on Mt. Elden on the forest. 

Utah bladderfern grows in cracks and ledges on cliffs on calcareous substrates. Habitats include 

calcareous cliffs of the Weber Formation; particularly on sandy ledges and in crevices. It has been 

collected on partially shaded to shaded west- to north-facing cliffs, on calcareous substrates 

including sandstone, limestone, and dacite. 

Risk Factors

Rarity. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 79 summarizes the viability analyses for seven cliff and rocky outcrop plant species: 

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake, Rock fleabane, Senator Mine alumroot, Fossil Creek bedstraw, black 

spleenwort, ebony spleenwort, and Utah bladderfern. This table was developed using the analysis 

process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, 

habitat, habitat trend, and likelihood that the species is limited by the habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 

Table 79. Analysis summary for cliff and rocky outcrop plants

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species, status, and F 

Rank

Habitat Condition 

and habitat 

trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake 

(Sensitive), rock fleabane 

(Sensitive), Fossil Creek 

bedstraw (Other), black 

spleenwort (Other), 

ebony spleenwort 

(Other), Utah bladderfern 

(Other) 

F Rank = F1*

Cliffs Good, static M Good, static M

Senator Mine alumroot

F Rank= FP*

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

479

Management Effect Management Effect =4: 

There is a decline in habitat 

quality as a result of 

management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few. 

Management Effect = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area. . 

* F1: Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of their habitats. *FP: Possibly could 

occur on the forest, but documented occurrences not known.

Common to All alternatives 

All of these species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute 

to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Alternative A

Table 79 shows that under alternative A, cliffs would remain in good condition with a static trend 

relative to desired conditions. This means cliffs are generally undisturbed and provide specialized 

habitats for cliff-dependent species. 

As shown in table 79, the likelihood that these species would be limited by cliffs on the forest is 

moderate. This likelihood was derived by combining these plants’ F Rank of F1 and FP with the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variable: cliffs (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate 

ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in this table shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 4 for cliffs 

which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

Desired conditions and guidelines for cliffs are largely lacking therefore managers do not have 

clear direction when protecting cliffs or managing uses and activities that might affect cliffs. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 79 shows that the habitat trend and likelihood that these species would be limited by cliffs 

is the same as alternative A, good condition with a static trend relative to desired condition. 

As shown in table 79, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

cliff and rocky outcrop plants is low. This likelihood was derived by combining these species’ F 

Ranks of F1 and FP with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable: cliffs (low) (table 9 in 

volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

480

filter habitats associated with these plant species. This means that plan components in alternative 

B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. Plan components 

also better address at-risk species and endemic species. 

For example, desired conditions for Biophysical Features seek to maintain cliffs in generally 

undisturbed conditions from human activities, maintaining the cultural, archaeological, 

geological, hydrological, paleontological, biological, and aesthetic resources of these features 

(FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-1) and acknowledge the importance of the specialized habitats for plants 

and animals that depend on them (FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-6). Projects should be designed and uses 

should be managed to maintain the integrity and function of caves, karst, cliffs, and talus slopes. 

Where alteration of these resources cannot be avoided, they should be mitigated to mimic predisturbance conditions and function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). A desired conditions in Wildlife, 

Fish and Plants also refers to the unique habitat provided by cliffs. This component provides 

direction for preserving the composition, structure and function of the ERUs and the physical 

features including cliffs and rock piles that provide habitat and refugia for the plants and animals 

that depend on them (FW-WFP–DC-5). 

Forestwide desired conditions for recreation contain guidance that would apply to recreation 

activities that could affect cliffs by altering microclimates or cliff surfaces and features used by a 

variety of species. A forestwide Recreation desired condition states that low impact recreation 

principles are widely practiced and sites are free from litter, graffiti, and vandalism (FW-Rec-AllDC-5). This desired condition would help maintain cliffs in their natural condition. These could 

include observing timing restrictions for raptors or avoiding areas with fragile native plants. The 

forestwide guidance for dispersed recreation includes a desired condition to maintain areas used 

for dispersed recreation in their natural character to the extent possible while having minimal 

evidence of human waste and resource damage (FW-Rec-Disp-DC-3). This guidance would help 

to preserve cliff faces, cracks, and microclimates necessary for species habitat requirements, and 

would minimize resource damage from uses such as rock climbing. 

There is no specific direction in the Heritage section of the forest plan that applies to cliff 

dwellings, but protection of these sites by law, policy, and direction relating to heritage sites 

would also protect cliff dwellings and the cliffs with which they are associated. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses species 

specific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution: 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and 

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

481

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Lyngholm’s cliffbrake, Rock fleabane, Senator Mine alumroot, Fossil Creek 

bedstraw, black spleenwort, ebony spleenwort, and Utah bladderfern, although individuals may 

be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead 

to a trend toward Federal listing for Lyngholm’s cliffbrake, rock fleabane and Senator Mine 

alumroot, which are Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D contain 

plan components for cliffs (which are absent in alternative A) and updated plan language that 

addresses at-risk, endemic, and rare species. The language in alternative A is substantially less 

robust than the other alternatives and alternative A generally lacks direction for cliffs as habitat, 

thus, management direction for projects and uses that affect cliffs is lacking. However, alternative 

A has an overarching goal to maintain viability for wildlife (which includes plants) and fish 

species. This goal provides some flexibility to manage forest uses to maintain viability for cliff 

dwelling species but a comprehensive forestwide approach to managing cliffs is lacking. 

Desert Plants

Basin bladderpod, Bigelow’s onion, Mearn’s lotus, and skunk-top scurfpea 

These species are grouped together due to the similarity of their habitat. Desert Communities, 

Semi-desert Grassland, Interior Chaparral, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs are more 

fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of basin bladderpod, classified as an Other planning species, is Coconino, 

Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai counties, Arizona (Hodgson et al. 2014). 

The known distribution of Bigelow’s onion, classified as an Other planning species, is from 

southwestern New Mexico, northwestward across central Arizona to Mohave County, into 

extreme southeastern Nevada. Many of the known occurrences on the forest are in the proposed 

Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (alternatives B (modified) and C).

The known distribution of Mearn’s lotus, classified as an Other planning species, is Coconino, 

Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai counties, Arizona (Hodgson et al. 2014). 

The known distribution of skunk-top scurfpea, classified as an Other planning species, is Arizona, 

Nevada, and Utah. It has been collected near Sedona, Arizona, but it is very rare on the forest. 

Habitat

Basin bladderpod occurs in Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub ERUs. Plants tend to grow on rocky slopes on calcareous soils, sandstone 

cobble, and gypsum soils (Baker 2010). 

Bigelow’s onion occurs in Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Interior Chaparral 

ERUs. Habitats include open, dry rocky soil in grassland and open chaparral, and desert scrub 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

482

communities. It has been collected on various soil types, including lake deposits with siltstone, 

sandstone and limestone. (AZGFD 2005). 

Mearn’s lotus occurs in Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub ERUs. The species occurs in streambeds and of various aspects of dry, rocky 

slopes and ridgelines. Soils include limestone, clay, calcareous sand gravel, and deep sand.

The skunk-top scurfpea occurs in Semi-desert Grassland ERU.

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distribution. They are vulnerable 

to perturbations in the environments such as ground-disturbing activities because of their small 

population sizes. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 80 summarizes the viability analyses for basin bladderpod, Bigelow’s onion, Mearn’s lotus, 

and skunk-top scurfpea. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the 

Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat 

condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 80. Analysis summary for desert species

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood species 

is limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Basin 

bladderpod, 

DC Poor, away M-H Poor away M-H

Mearns lotus

(Other) 

SDG Poor, away M-H Poor, slightly

toward

M-H

F Rank =F3* PJES Fair, away L-M Fair, away L-M

Bigelow’s DC Poor, away H Poor, away H

onion (Other) SDG Poor, away H Poor, slightly 

toward

H

F Rank = F2* IC Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away

Short term: M

Long term: M-H

Good, away M

Skunk-top 

scurfpea 

(Other) 

F Rank =F1*

SDG Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward

VH
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

483

Management Effect DC, SDG, PJES and PP = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to some 

occurrences. 

IC=4: Decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may 

not exist or may be few. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat, F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

(BMPs) for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). 

Implementation of this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could 

cause loss of protective vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including 

compaction or soils with high burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion 

hazard and calcareous soils that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific BMPs should be developed. Finally, specific 

project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent 

grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are 

sensitive to degradation when disturbed. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, would compete with these species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 

69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, FW Invas- G- 1, 2, -

3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). Additional information and analysis is 

discussed under the Non-native Species and Disease topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and 

Issues section. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

484

About 766 acres (1 percent) of Desert Communities, about 3,640 acres of Semi-desert Grassland 

(4 percent), about 47,893 acres (18 percent) of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and 39,065 acres 

(77 percent) of Interior Chaparral are in designated wilderness. Plan language for designated 

wilderness provides additional protection to these species so would contribute to their viability in 

all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a 

natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities 

and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for 

wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values 

from being compromised. Ground disturbance would be reduced in the habitats for these species 

because motorized and mechanized use in wildernesses are not allowed (1987 Plan, pages 105, 

108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 80 shows that under alternative A, DC, SDG, and PJES would trend away from desired 

conditions. Desert Communities would remain in poor condition due to increased density of 

shrubs and understory species and Semi-desert Grasslands would remain in poor condition due to 

continued increases in shrubs and trees and increased fragmentation from urbanization. Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition but because the fire return interval is also 

trending away, tree and shrub regeneration would increase. Increased density of trees, shrubs, and 

understory could increase competition with these species and facilitate a higher fire severity than 

these species had evolved with thereby degrading their habitat. The Interior Chaparral habitat of 

Bigelow’s onion would remain in good condition at the short term and move to fair condition in 

the long term, trending away due to the threats of non-native invasive weeds and uncharacteristic 

wildfire. 

As shown in table 80, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining this species’ F Ranks of F1, F2, and F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands (high), Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate), and Interior Chaparral (low at short term, moderate at 

long term) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the 

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Desert 

Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, which means that 

plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the 

other alternatives. The management effect rating is classified as a 4 for Interior Chaparral, which 

means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that 

result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. Alternative A 

provides no direction on specific desired conditions for interior chaparral. The Sedona/Oak Creek 

Ecosystem-wide plan direction includes some beneficial general guidance, but it only covers a 

small proportion of Interior Chaparral ERU. 

The reasons for this management effect rating are listed below. Alternative A provides outdated 

direction for Desert Communities and for a large portion of Semi-desert Grassland (in the Verde

Valley MA). This outdated direction emphasizes range and forage improvement rather than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

485

composition, structure, and natural processes as in the desired conditions. This alternative also 

emphasizes using methods such as soil scarification and broadcast seeding which could facilitate 

the establishment of invasive plant species which compete with native species and can facilitate 

the spread of wildfire to which Desert Communities is not adapted. In the portions of Desert 

Communities and Semi-desert Grassland that overlaps the Verde Valley Management Area, the 

current forest plan emphasizes watershed condition and range management. Range management 

focuses on less than satisfactory range conditions, broadcast seeding following burning to 

increase production, and forage improvement. The direction for soil in this alternative focuses on 

achieving range improvement by identifying areas suitable for soil scarification and seeding of 

early seral species to a “more productive state” and to evaluate soils to determine the best species 

to promote stabilization (1987 Plan, page 166, 168, 169). This direction does not move this ERU 

toward the ecologically based desired conditions in alternative B (modified). Scarification and 

seeding would disturb the soil surface and lead to increased erosion and lead to the establishment 

of non-native species like Lehmann love grass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) that competes with 

native plants and facilitates fire spread. However, vegetative treatments to improve these habitats 

would be reviewed for soil potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment. In 

the portion of these habitats that overlap the Savannah Management Area, the current plan 

promotes an open vegetation structure, using prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, and 

would increase the area occupied by grasses and forbs while decreasing the area occupied by 

shrubs and trees in comparison to recent historic levels (1987 plan, page 206-50). This could 

improve the survival of these species.

The current forest plan contains outdated direction for managing fragile desert soils. The direction 

for soil in MA 11 (Verde Valley Management Area) in this alternative focuses on achieving range 

improvement by identifying areas suitable for soil scarification and seeding of early seral species 

to a “more productive state” and to evaluate soils to determine the best species to promote 

stabilization (1987 Plan, page 169). This direction does not move this ERU toward the 

ecologically based desired conditions in alternative B (modified). Scarification would disturb the 

soil surface in the Verde Formation, a soil type in Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, 

and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and lead to increased erosion. Scarification and seeding of 

early seral species can introduce non-native species like Lehmann love grass (Eragrostis 

lehmanniana) that compete with native plants and facilitate fire spread. 

A plan component in the Verde Valley MA that recommends review of soil potential for 

revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment is positive however for areas containing the 

Verde Formation. Mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe impairment of soil 

productivity. Another positive plan component in this same MA would improve conditions on 

prioritized watersheds in unsatisfactory condition in the Verde Valley MA. This could move 

degraded areas toward desired conditions depending on the methods used (1987 Plan, pages 168 

and 169). 

Alternative A provides little to no direction on specific desired conditions for interior chaparral.

The Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem-wide plan direction includes some beneficial guidance, but it 

only covers a small proportion of Interior Chaparral ERU. Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem-wide 

plan direction includes provisions to conserve or restore natural ecosystem disturbance patterns 

and function and to promote the natural ecological role of fire within the constraints of human 

health and safety while the mosaic of vegetative conditions reduce the occurrence of catastrophic 

fires (1987 Plan, pages 206-9, 206-11, 206-19). The ecosystem-wide direction would reduce fire 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

486

risk by prohibiting camping and campfires in the Neighborwoods, Oak Creek Canyon, and 

Redrock-Front Country MAs, except in designated places (1987 Plan, page 206-24). 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this management effect rating is because alternative A also 

does not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three pinyon juniper types 

that differ in composition, structure, and processes. There is one broad vegetation category of 

Pinyon Juniper. The different pinyon juniper types are differentiated on the basis of slope. 

Vegetation structure, and consequently, habitat for these species, would not be equitably, or 

naturally, distributed across the landscape, and managers lack specific guidance for the Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU. The emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatments to achieve management objectives associated with range and watershed condition 

could maintain or improve habitat for these species (1987 Plan, pages 148 through 155; 162 

through 165). 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in these ERUs, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, and 165) and the language to manage wildfires for resource 

objectives in wilderness impedes the use of this tool (1987 Plan, pages 111-112). This does not 

contribute to the viability of these species because this would limit the restoration of fire as a 

natural process in the wildland-urban interface and in wilderness, and canopy cover and shrub 

and tree density would be expected to increase in these areas. There would also be increased 

potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban interface and wilderness portions of these 

ERUs. This is particularly problematic in Semi-desert Grassland because the landownership 

pattern is intermixed between public and private ownerships. However, plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional protection to these species and would contribute to 

species viability in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and 

would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; 

management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent 

wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Desert Communities and Semi-Desert Grassland ERUs occur within the Verde Valley Botanical 

Area, which is within MA 17 (special areas) of this alternative. Plan components in alternative A 

are generally protective of the composition, structure, and function of the different vegetation 

types within botanical areas. For example, existing conditions and natural processes would be 

maintained; natural events would not be rehabilitated; and off-road driving would be prohibited 

(1987 Plan, page 194). Visitors should be limited in some areas depending on carrying capacity 

and the uniqueness and ecological condition of these areas should be protected and maintained, 

including in allotment management plans. In addition, timber harvest and firewood cutting is 

prohibited (1987 Plan, page 195). Other protective measures include: Special-use authorizations 

that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be allowed; adjacent roads would be 

managed to prevent vehicular intrusion, and road access would be blocked and obliterated. Fire 

suppression tactics would minimize damage to character of the areas and prescribed fire with 

planned ignitions may be used as a management tool provided it is a compatible use (1987 Plan, 

page 196). Collectively, these standards and guidelines mitigate the soil disturbance and plant 

damage that can result from these activities and maintain the conditions and characteristics for 

which this botanical area was established. Mechanized use in botanical areas is not explicitly
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

487

addressed resulting in vague direction to managers. It is unclear as to whether mechanized use is 

prohibited, is allowed only on trails, or is allowed on and off trail in these areas. Consequently, 

mechanized use could damage vegetation or contribute to accelerated soil erosion within 

localized areas in this ERU.

Alternative A does not include a designation for the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area or the 

combined Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area. This would leave between 185 to 

763 acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU habitat for the Bigelow’s onion with less protection than 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D. Alternative A does not have plan components that directly 

address the threat to the geologic formations and the plant community from motor vehicle use 

which has been problematic in the past.

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 80 shows that the condition and trend of Desert Communities (poor and away from desired 

conditions) and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (fair and away from desired conditions) would 

be the same as for alternative A. The condition of Semi-desert Grassland (poor) would be the 

same as for alternative A; however, trend would improve to slightly toward desired conditions. 

Interior Chaparral would remain in good condition with a trend away from desired conditions. 

As shown in table 80, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Ranks of F3, F2, and F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: DC and SDG (high), IC (low), and PJES (low-moderate) (table 9 in 

volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 2 for all the habitats 

associated with these species. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For alternative B (modified), shrub density, tree density, and canopy cover are likely to increase 

in Interior Chaparral and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub. The increases would have the negative 

effect of shading understory species and maintaining a greater number of small to medium-sized 

trees than desired (Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub) or maintaining larger patches of older shrubs 

in Interior Chaparral due to lack of fire. For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, these same changes 

increase the potential for a greater proportion of the ERU to burn at the high end of the range for 

mixed severity fires. For Interior Chaparral, these changes would increase the potential for a 

larger patch sizes of high severity fires. Reproduction or survival may be negatively affected 

because these species may not be adapted to these consequences, especially in Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub. High-severity fire is the natural fire regime in Interior Chaparral, so the effect 

to Bigelow’s onion may be less. Shading understory species could result in reduced abundance of 

vegetative ground cover and accelerated erosion. Collectively, shading could degrade habitat for 

Basin bladderpod, Mearn’s lotus, and Bigelow’s onion over the long term. However, there is an 

objective to use naturally ignited wildfires (i.e., lightning-caused fires that are managed for 

resource objectives) to treat at least 3,750 acres in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub within the 

natural fire regime during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-3). 

This would be beneficial for these species in the areas where burning creates canopy gaps and 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

488

reduces tree density by allowing sunlight and precipitation to increase the vigor and abundance of 

understory. 

For Interior Chaparral, there are no plan objectives, but any treatments that might occur in this 

ERU, over the life of the plan, would follow the direction in alternative B (modified) and would 

be expected to maintain or improve habitat for Bigelow’s onion. Alternative B (modified) has 

specific desired conditions and guidelines for this ERU, whereas these are absent in alternative A.

These plan components provide managers with guidance to promote natural disturbances, a 

diversity of age classes and seral stages of native species, and to rotate treatments to re-establish 

seed banks, protect soils from accelerated erosion, and facilitate the distribution and quantity of 

fuels necessary for fire (FW-TerrERU-IC-DC- 1, 2. 3, G-1). 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, alternative B (modified) distinguishes between the different 

Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides desired conditions, objectives and guidance that 

are specific to the each type. Management direction would promote properly functioning 

ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic 

disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU 

specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5-

9; G-1-3, 5). 

Table 80 shows that like alternative A, Semi-desert Grassland ERU would remain in poor 

condition but unlike alternative A, this ERU would trend toward desired conditions due to plan 

objectives that would restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1). The plan objective 

would remove tree and shrub cover and create more open conditions that could favor these 

species. This alternative distinguishes between the grassland habitats on the forest and containing 

explicit and updated direction on the composition, structure, and processes for these ERUs (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-4, 8), compared to alternative A, which has a more forage-based approach. 

Alternative B (modified) also provides plan components to promote properly functioning and 

resilient ecosystems, promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

disturbances, and promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and 

properly functioning ecosystems thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC1, 2, 3, 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU specific direction would provide for a variety of native 

species with varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support 

natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1 to 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). 

Alternative B (modified) would provide clearer direction than alternative A for Desert 

Communities, allowing for a greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move toward desired 

conditions (FW-Eco-DC-1, FW-Eco-DC-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-1 to 3; FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-1 

to 4). Soil desired conditions would promote proper functioning soils, soil protection and 

stabilization, and nutrient cycling (FW-Soil-DC-1 to 4). Forestwide soil guidelines would avoid 

excessive ground disturbance, limit accelerated erosion, and minimize bringing more calcareous 

soil to the surface (FW-Soil-G-1 to 3). Bringing calcareous soil to the surface would limit soil 

plant nutrient availability. About 97 percent of Desert Communities ERU occurs within the Verde 

Valley Management Area. Desired conditions and guidelines would maintain or improve 

conditions in Desert Communities ERU by promoting watershed function and balancing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

489

recreational opportunities and dispersed recreation with resource protection and/or maintaining or 

moving toward other desired conditions (MA-VerdeV-DC-4 and MA-VerdeV-G-1 and 2). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not restrict the use of wildfires managed for 

resource objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Fire and vegetation management in the 

wildland-urban interface would favor low intensity surface fires; higher frequency of disturbance 

than the natural disturbance regime from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource 

objectives, and/or vegetative treatments; more area of grass/forb/shrub vegetation or early seral 

vegetation, and more open conditions. Wildland-urban interface areas would still be within the 

range of desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 6, 7, and G-1). Although intended to reduce the 

risk of wildfire to surrounding communities and values-at-risk, conditions and activities in the 

wildland-urban interface could have the positive effect of maintaining habitat for these desert 

plant species by stimulating flowering, seed release, germination, removing competitors, or 

causing a temporary increase in nutrient availability (Satterthwaite et al. 2002). Areas with 

increased disturbance from management activities could degrade habitat through accelerated soil 

erosion, soil compaction, depletion of the seedbank in the soil, and establishment of non-native 

species could out-compete with these species (Cione et al. 2002). Plants could respond negatively 

or positively to more frequent fire depending on timing (when flowering, forming seed, actively 

growing, or when carbohydrate reserves are relatively low), frequency, severity, duration, and 

extent of burning and how these factors interface with plant morphology or other existing 

conditions like drought (DeBano et al. 1998). Furthermore, more frequent low severity ground 

fires are not the natural fire regime for DC, IC, or PJES so composition and structure of these 

ERUs in WUI could shift (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-8). The effect of these altered conditions in the 

WUI on these species is dependent on the site-specific and species specific interaction of the 

above mentioned possible effects and conditions. 

Rarity is a risk for these species and they all have restricted distributions or are endemic. In 

contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses species 

specific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution: 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) also promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). Additional information and analysis 

is discussed under the At Risk topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

by adding language so roads and recreational activities and locations are managed to move 

toward desired conditions for other resources; so unneeded roads are decommissioned, and so 

temporary roads are naturalized in a timely manner (FW-RdsFac-G-1, 6, 8 and FW-Rec-All-G-1). 

A Roads and Facilities desired condition may lead to temporary increases in roads to allow for 

management activities including restoration treatments and prescribed burning (FW-RdsFac-DC3). These temporary roads could crush plants, degrade habitat, contribute to soil loss, or increase 

the risk of non-native plant establishment. However, these activities are needed to conduct 

vegetative treatments that would reduce departure from desired conditions in ERUs and reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire. These treatments would generally open canopy and would 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

490

improve the distribution and abundance of herbaceous understory, including habitat for rare 

plants. Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Disturbance (plants) topic in 

the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

Forestwide direction for recreation would improve conditions in these habitats more than 

alternative A. This is because it integrates the need to protect sensitive resources from the impacts 

of motorized and non-motorized recreation; the need to rehabilitate unauthorized trails so as to 

prevent accelerated erosion; and the need to potentially restrict national forest visitor activities 

where they would inhibit site restoration or cannot be made compatible through appropriate 

mitigations (FW-Rec-All-DC-6, FW-Rec-All-G-1, FW-Rec-All-G-2, FW-Rec-Trails-DC-3, FWRec-Trails-DC- 4, FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11, FW-Rec-Trails-G-1, FW-Rec-Trails-G-3).

There are 132 acres (less than 1 percent) of SDG and 723 acres (less than 1 percent) of PJES in 

recommended wilderness in this alternative. Recommended wilderness would be managed to 

maintain or enhance primitive and undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and 

unique features; to reduce evidence of modern human control and manipulations; and motor 

vehicle uses should only occur for limited administrative and permitted activities to be consistent 

with wilderness character (FW- RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This would protect habitat 

by reducing some ground disturbance that could occur as result of management activities or 

permitted uses. Recommended wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires but 

could make them more challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire 

should be consistent with wilderness character and depending on site-specific conditions, this 

may not always be possible. Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or 

prohibited (vehicle use) if recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation could 

restrict the use of vegetative treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU. The 

magnitude of the effect on species and their habitat depends on what needs to be restored in SDG 

and PJES in recommended wilderness, what tools might be needed for restoration, and whether 

access in the areas adjacent to RWA is sufficient to allow for safe use of prescribed or managed 

fire if needed. 

Unlike alternative A, mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable except 

mechanized travel would be suitable on routes designated for mechanized travel. This plan 

language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism (see Chapter 4 

Recreation and Transportation Suitability). Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be 

done for this direction to take effect. This suitability recommendation is considered to be 

protective of the special features including plants and their habitat because impacts to the plant 

species would be evaluated during the environmental analysis and impacts would be limited to 

the trail prism. This direction applies to the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert 

Communities) and the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (178 acres of 

Desert Communities). Currently only the Verde Valley Botanical Area has designated trails 

whereas there are none in the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area which 

also has most of the occurrences of Bigelow’s onion on the forest (SEINet 2016). This alternative 

has specific guidance restricting travel to foot traffic within the Cottonwood Basin Geological 

and Botanical Area (SA-RNABotGeo-G-7). Designation of this area will preserve this unique 

botanical community and help protect the area from such threats as illegal off-road vehicle use. 

This guidance would remove vehicle travel and would better protect the unique rock formations 

and plants occurring in this area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

491

Alternative C

The effects to these species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except there would be 949 acres of Desert Communities (2 percent), 12,041 acres of Semi-desert 

Grasslands (13 percent), 50,164 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (19 percent), and 

1,720 acres (3 percent) of Interior Chaparral in recommended wilderness. In alternative C, 

mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable even on designated routes. This 

plan language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism. Subsequent 

environmental analysis would need to be done for this direction to take effect. This suitability 

recommendation is considered to be protective of the special features including plants and their 

habitat because impacts to the plant species would be evaluated during the environmental 

analysis. This direction applies to the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert 

Communities and 162 acres of Semi-desert Grassland) and the proposed Cottonwood Basin 

Geological and Botanical Area (178 acres of Desert Communities and 574 of Semi-desert 

Grassland). Currently only the Verde Valley Botanical Area has designated trails whereas there 

are none in the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area, which also has most 

of the occurrences of Bigelow’s onion on the forest (SEINet 2016). 

Alternative D

For alternative D, only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area would be designated. The 

geological area would be much smaller (185 acres). It is assumed that plant diversity would be 

lower in the designated area as well. Alternative D would also have the guideline limiting travel 

to foot travel, but it would only apply to the designated geological area. Accordingly, alternative 

D would provide less protection for Bigelow’s onion on about 600 acres. 

Findings

Considering the cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, viability would be provided for 

in all alternatives for basin bladderpod, Bigelow’s onion, Mearn’s lotus, and skunk-top scurfpea, 

although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these species than alternative A primarily 

because they distinguish between the grassland and Pinyon Juniper types on the forest. These 

alternatives also provide updated and improved plan direction for those ERUs, as well as Desert 

Communities and Interior Chaparral ERUs that would guide future projects. 

With regard to Bigelow’s onion, alternatives B (modified) and C contribute more to its viability 

than alternatives A and D because those alternatives would designate a 763 geological and 

botanical area that includes the Semi-desert Grassland ERU habitat used by this species. 

Alternative D contributes more to the viability of Bigelow’s onion than alternative A, which 

would not include any special area designation in Cottonwood Basin. Alternative D contributes 

less to the viability of this species than alternatives B (modified) and C, which would designate a 

larger, combined geological and botanical area in Cottonwood Basin. All three action alternatives 

contain occurrences of the species, but alternatives B (modified) and C would protect more 

habitat. Alternative A provides no designation for this area. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

492

Eagles 

Bald eagles and golden eagles

These species are grouped together due to the similarity of these species (and their habitat). 

Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, and Montane Willow riparian forest types, as 

well as the Ponderosa Pine ERU and cliffs are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat

section.

Bald eagles are a Southwestern Region sensitive species. Golden eagles are “Other” species 

classification for this analysis. For golden eagles, the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a 

report titled Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and 

Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle Management and Permit Issuance (Pagel et 

al. 2010).This analysis includes a finding relative to viability and a determination relative to 

‘take’ under the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act for each alternative. 

Affected Environment 

All golden and bald eagles, regardless of status, are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (Eagle Act). This analysis determines if take is likely to occur with implementation 

of the action alternatives. Take is defined in the Eagle Act as to “...pursue, shoot, shoot at, 

poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb.” Disturb is further defined 

“...to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based 

on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, 

by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest 

abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the regulatory authority for this Act.

Distribution

Bald eagles are found in Canada, Alaska, all of the contiguous United States, and northern 

Mexico. There are both nesting and wintering bald eagles on the Coconino NF. There are 

currently 11 confirmed and 27 potential bald eagle roosts on the forest. There are six breeding 

areas on the forest and all are below the Mogollon Rim except for one in the Lake Mary area. The 

breeding areas below the Mogollon Rim are located along the Verde River or within 1 mile of the 

confluence of major tributaries to the Verde River. 

Golden eagles are found in North America, Eurasia, and parts of North Africa. In Arizona, 

breeding bird surveyors noted gold eagles throughout their previously described range (Corman 

and Wise-Gervais (2005)). On the forest, there are 10 confirmed nests. Two are within Red RockSecret Mountain Wilderness, one is at the edge of Munds Mountain Wilderness, and one is within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

Habitat

In Arizona, bald eagles are migratory and permanent residents. They are associated with 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian, Montane Willow Riparian, 

Ponderosa Pine, and Cliffs, Small to moderately sized groups (2 to 48 eagles) night roost in 

clumps (less than 1 to 43 acres) of large trees in protected locations. Large trees are used for 

roosting, nesting, and perches. Roosting eagles are associated with Ponderosa Pine ERU. Eagles 

typically roost in the following locations: ponderosa pine stands that are variable in size (less than 

an acre to 43 acres), north or northeast-facing slopes, and areas close to daytime foraging areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

493

(Dargan 1991). Roost trees are large live or dead ponderosa pine trees averaging 28 inches d.b.h. 

that occur in groups and are much larger than other trees in roost stands (Dargan 1991). 

In Arizona, golden eagles are permanent residents and nest from arid desert scrub to open conifer 

forest often near cliffs and canyons, and large open areas for foraging. They are associated with 

cliffs. On the forest, they occasionally nest in snags and large trees in Ponderosa Pine ERU. Eakle 

and Grubb (1986) identified a total of 38 prey items representing 12 species in golden eagle diets 

in central Arizona. Mammals made up 78.9 percent, birds 18.4 percent, and reptiles 2.6 percent. 

The majority of remains were black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and rock squirrel 

(Spermophilus variegatus) indicating their importance to nesting eagles in central Arizona. 

Additional information on these ERUs and cliffs can be found above in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section.

Risk Factors

The primary species threat to bald eagles is disturbance during the breeding season, which may 

result in failed reproduction or fewer young. Disturbance at bald eagle winter roosts could 

negatively impact survival or could increase winter stress. 

According to Corman and Wise-Gervais (2005), there are no outstanding threats to golden eagles 

in Arizona; however, urban encroachment and increased recreational activity could affect some 

local breeding areas. They are cautious of humans and golden eagles are sparse or absent where 

human disturbance is frequent.

Both eagles have threats from electrocution from transmission lines; collisions, injury or death 

associated with communication towers or energy development structures and large-scale wind 

and solar energy development. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 81 summarizes the viability analyses for bald eagles and golden eagles. This table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

494

Table 81. Analysis summary for bald eagles and golden eagles

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and 

status 

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Bald 

eagle 

(Sensitiv

e) 

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M 

F Rank = 

F3*

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

M Good, slowly 

toward

M 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

M Good, slowly 

toward

M 

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: LM 

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

495

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and 

status 

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Golden 

eagle

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

(Other) 

F Rank = 

F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: LM 

Management Effect CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF, and PP = 

3: Plan components maintain or 

improve protection and management 

for some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some occurrences. 

Cliffs=4: Decline in habitat quality as 

a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may 

not exist or may be few. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area.

* F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

All alternatives have areas that are closed seasonally to provide recreation opportunities in areas 

undisturbed by vehicles and/or to provide quiet areas for wildlife. These areas total about 

47,134 acres, include eagle habitat, and are existing closure orders: Cottonwood Basin, Pine 

Grove, Rattlesnake, Woods, and Woody Ridge (1987 Plan, pages 59, 206-114, the Off-Road 

Driving Management Plan for Land and Resource Management Planning (Revised May 1991); 

FW-Rec-Disp-G-6, MA-PineBelt-DC-5, 6, 7, 8, MA-LkMary-DC-4, MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 4, 

MA-LkMary-S-1, MA-VerdeV- DC-7 and S-1). 

Particularly beneficial plan language includes implementation of timing restrictions to reduce 

disturbance to bald eagles during the nesting season. These would have the indirect positive 

effects of promoting population recruitment and survival (1987 Plan, pages 167 (bald eagles 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

496

only), 206-73 (bald eagles only), 209-67 (both eagles in FLEA area only); and FW-WFP-S-2 

(both eagles) and FW-WFP-G-8. 

Designated wilderness areas would also provide some protection from disturbance under all 

alternatives. For bald eagles, there are 33,724 acres of Ponderosa Pine, Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian, and Montane Willow Riparian habitat in 

designated wilderness. There are additional unknown acres of cliffs. For golden eagles, there are 

31,087 acres of Ponderosa Pine ERU in designated wilderness plus an unknown amount of cliffs. 

Only a portion of pine type near grasslands or pinyon juniper would be suitable for golden eagles. 

These areas would provide habitat undisturbed by motorized vehicles to nesting or foraging 

eagles.

All alternatives would reduce collision and transmission line hazards to eagles by promoting the 

use of existing transmission corridors to capacity with compatible utilities (where additions are 

environmentally and visually acceptable before evaluating new routes) (1987 Plan, page 79, FWSpecUse-G-4) and specifying that power lines and towers would be constructed or reconstructed 

to specifications compatible with raptor use (1987 Plan, page 80, FW-SpecUse-DC-5). All 

alternatives would not allow new construction in research natural areas, geological and botanical 

areas, the Mt. Elden Environmental Study Area, and the Verde Wild and Scenic River (1987 Plan, 

page 79, FW-SpecUse-G-10; page 115-5 and page 27 in the Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive River Management Plan). Consequently, new power lines and transmission 

corridors would not occur in these areas which could contain roosting, nesting, or foraging habitat 

for bald and golden eagles. 

Alternative A

Table 81 shows that under alternative A, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would be in fair 

condition and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian Forest

would remain in good condition. All of these riparian forest types would have a static trend or 

slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow, some portions of the Verde River, 

Dry Beaver Creek and Lower Oak Creek would be static due to high recreation and private land. 

In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, static trends are associated with the Oak Creek 

5th code HUC; trends that are slowly toward desired conditions are associated with the Beaver 

Creek 5th code HUC; and portions of Fossil Creek are trending away from desired conditions 

where recreation impacts occur. In Montane Willow Riparian Forest, the Upper Clear Creek 5th 

code HUC is trending toward desired conditions. 

Table 81 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition in the short term, then improve 

to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The improved 

vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the 

high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation 

quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because more acres 

would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the 

short and long term. Cliffs would be in good condition with a static trend related to desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 81, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to moderate depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

497

ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

(moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate, except the Fern Mountain Botanical 

Area and Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC is high), Ponderosa Pine ERU (moderate in short 

term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), and cliffs (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be 

within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Cottonwood 

Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest, and Ponderosa Pine ERU, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or 

improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus 

contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. 

Alternative A does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian areas and lacks plan 

components relative to composition, structure, and function yet it has a number of protective 

standards or guidelines. 

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests and streamcourses because it has a 

focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian vegetation, 

stream banks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as 

possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language includes the 

following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as 

utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of 

impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent 

resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats 

(1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high 

priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation 

in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). 

Plan components in the Sedona-Oak Creek Ecosystem would maintain riparian pasture and 

riparian exclosures to prevent livestock trespass, which can degrade sensitive species habitat 

(1987 Plan, page 206-12) and directs that fire management activities protect riparian (1987 Plan, 

page 206-11). Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Area (FLEA) goals and objectives would assure 

riparian communities benefit riparian-dependent resources and support diverse assemblages of 

aquatic and terrestrial species; streambanks are protected; and stream flow is adequate to maintain 

aquatic communities and water sources for wildlife (1987 Plan, page 206-78). FLEA area-wide 

guidelines emphasize rehabilitation of high elevation riparian communities, ensure that riparian 

areas are in a condition to improve or maintain high quality water in the Lake Mary and Oak 

Creek Watersheds, and would avoid placing large group events in riparian or open water areas 

(1987 Plan, pages 206-66, 78). In Oak Creek Canyon MA 14, there is a goal to ensure woody 

materials, such as logs, tree limbs, and snags, are present in riparian communities for prey base 

habitat, aquatic nutrient cycling and soil retention consistent with public safety (1987 Plan, page 

185). Although these are positive plan components for eagles, they only apply in localized areas. 

This alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the 

other alternatives.

Although there is outdated plan language for Ponderosa Pine ERU, some of it is positive. The 

plan direction emphasizes uneven–aged structure and canopy cover retention as well as snag, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

498

minimum levels for logs and woody debris for various habitat categories (1987 Plan, pages 65-9 

to 65-11). General direction is provided to manage for old age trees such that as much old forest 

structure as possible is sustained over time across the landscape and to sustain a mosaic of 

vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes and species composition across the 

landscape (1987 Plan, pages 65-7, 70-1, and 70-2). 

An objective in Roads and Facilities would “decommission between 200 to 800 miles of a 

combination of unauthorized roads and system roads not identified on the motor vehicle use map 

during the 10 years following approval.” This analysis assumes that the majority of 

decommissioning would occur in Ponderosa Pine because that is where most of the 4FRI-related 

activities are currently planned and that decommissioning effectively closes the road. This could 

have a positive effect on eagle roosting by preserving more snag roosts. Snag and log abundance 

within Ponderosa Pine could be affected by road decommissioning. Several authors have 

documented a direct correlation between snag availability and road access. Wisdom and Bates 

(2008) reported that snags were nearly three times more abundant in stands away from roads as 

they were in stands with roads and snags were less abundant in stands closer to towns or in flatter 

topography. Likewise, Chambers (2002), and Ganey et al. (2014) reported a similar relationship 

between human access and decreased snag and log availability in northern Arizona pine-oak 

habitat. Fuelwooding is one of the activities that could impact snag and log abundance. Current 

fuelwood regulations have limits on the locations and timing where fuelwood can be gathered and 

the size of snags that can be removed, and the snag sizes are based on forest plan direction.

Direction for botanical areas, geological areas and research natural areas is found in Management 

Area 17. Standards and guidelines would maintain and protect habitat for wildlife species due to 

emphasis on ecological condition, requiring allotment management plans to have provisions to 

protect ecological conditions, prohibiting timber harvest and fuelwood harvest, restricting special 

use permits that would have a negative impact on the uniqueness of special areas, and preventing 

motor vehicle intrusions (1987 Plan, pages 195 and 196). Alternative A proposes the 925-acre 

Rocky Gulch Research Natural Area, which is nearly all ponderosa pine. In addition, about 

2,518 acres of existing special areas contain ponderosa pine, and about 190 acres contain 

Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, or Montane Willow riparian forest types. 

However, some portions of alternative A (and alternative C) follow the 1987 plan for managing 

old growth as 100- to 300-acre stands over no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem 

management area. Consequences of this plan direction are described in detail in the Vegetation 

and Fire section in volume I of the FEIS. This strategy would provide less ability than alternatives 

B (modified) and D to promote vertical structure and age class diversity; would tend to maintain a 

more continuous canopy than alternatives B (modified) and D that would be more conducive to 

crown fires; and would result in more even-aged conditions. This structure and age class diversity 

is not reflective of frequent low-severity fires characteristic of this ERU. During wildfires, there 

is likely to be more area in mixed severity condition with 25 percent to 75 percent loss of 

dominant overstory, compared to loss of 25 percent or less, which is characteristic of low-severity 

fires. Old-growth stands would be less resilient to endemic levels of disturbances. There would be 

fewer openings and less understory. 

Suppression objectives in the plan would minimize impact on the land while keeping fires to 

10 acres or fewer in areas mapped as the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 93, 155, 

165). In areas outside the wildland-urban interface, the suppression objective is to minimize cost 

and provide for personnel safety while holding fires to 100 acres or less (1987 Plan, pages 94, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

499

137). These limitations to the role of fire in the ecosystem were designed to protect ponderosa 

pine suitable timberlands, but they also serve to inhibit the restoration of this ERU and does not 

acknowledge the natural role of fire in ecosystem processes and function. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Ponderosa Pine, but 

plan language that limits the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives in wilderness and 

in wildland-urban interface would not be beneficial for eagles because Ponderosa Pine is a fireadapted ecosystem. This language eliminates one management tool that would favor restoration 

of the historic fire regime in these areas, which would promote the growth of large trees for 

roosting or nesting. 

This alternative would avoid transmission lines in the Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer 

vegetation types and would evaluate new corridors for their potential impacts on habitats for 

threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, page 79). Avoidance of these ERUs would be 

beneficial because large ponderosa pine trees and snags in these ERUs can be used for roosting 

and nesting by both golden and bald eagles. 

The management effect is classified as a 4 for cliffs, which means there is a decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or may be few. Plan components for cliffs and rock outcrops are 

generally lacking in alternative A, thus, there is little direction for management of these features 

and the environments they provide. Guidance for cliffs is limited to visual quality and their 

importance to archaeology. Scenery guidance for cliffs occurs in the Red Cliff and Front Country 

management areas (1987 Plan, pages 206-43 and 206-46), which represent less than 9,000 acres 

of the forest. Alternative A directs the forest to manage and stabilize several of the major known 

cliff dwellings (1987 Plan, page 56). 

Alternative A has language to follow approved or more recent conservation strategies or 

assessments for bald eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-100), but lacks this direction for golden eagles. 

Following these conservation strategies or assessments could reduce the risk associated with bald 

eagles by providing more specific direction on species and project management.

Alternative A has language that requires powerlines and towers to be built or reconstructed to 

specifications compatible with raptor use (1987 Plan, page 80). This is beneficial for both eagles 

and should reduce the risk of collisions, injury or death associated with communication towers or 

energy development structures. Alternative A does not specifically address alternative energy 

developments, such as large-scale wind and solar energy development, so the guidance in the 

forest plan would not be adequate to mitigate potential impacts to eagles and other wildlife 

species.

Alternative A is silent on allowing bicycles on designated trails in botanical and geological areas, 

thus, could have consequences on bald and golden eagles. Golden eagles nest in one of the 

geological areas on the forest. Even though there are no mountain biking trails here at this time, 

they could be developed in the future. Although there are no known nests or roosts, bald and 

golden eagles could use portions of the other geological and botanical areas for nesting and 

roosting. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

500

Alternative B (modified)

Table 81 shows that under alternative B (modified) all the riparian forest types that provide 

habitat for bald eagles would be in good condition and slowly trend toward desired conditions. In 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, toward trends would be associated with the Beaver 

Creek 5th code HUC, Oak Creek 5th code HUC, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUC. In Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest, the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC would be trending toward. 

Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to alternative A, remaining in poor condition with a trend 

toward desired conditions in the short term under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres 

mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). However, in the short term under the high vegetation 

treatment objectives (260,050 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long 

term under both the low and high vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to 

fair and trend toward desired conditions. 

Like alternative A, cliffs would be in good condition with a static trend related to desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 81, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 

ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest (moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Ponderosa Pine ERU (moderate 

in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high 

treatment objective), and cliffs (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats 

associated with bald eagles and golden eagles. This means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area.

The “2” rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that 

distinguish between the riparian forest types and that support their respective composition, 

structure, and function (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, 

riparian functional condition would improve faster than alternative A, especially along the Verde 

River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek which is habitat for bald eagles. The 

desired conditions manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority 

watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More sitespecific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FWRip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, 

Fish and Plant section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

For Ponderosa Pine, this rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological 

conditions and composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast 

to alternative A (Reynolds et al. 2013). Particularly beneficial guidelines provide sideboards that 

would promote or sustain old-growth forest attributes, uneven-aged conditions, pre-settlement 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

501

trees, occupancy of small wildlife species, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle 

outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1 through 7). Although alternative B (modified) promotes an open 

uneven-aged structure similar to historic conditions, it also has provisions for denser areas such as 

on steep slopes and in canyons and larger tree groups in areas managed for bald eagles (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-8 and 13). 

For cliffs, this rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated direction related to 

maintaining the integrity and function of these biophysical features and the specialized habitat 

they provide. For example, alternative B (modified) has desired conditions, guidelines, and 

management approaches that would be particularly beneficial for cliff-dwelling species and their 

habitat. These plan components apply forestwide, rather than to specific areas like in alternative 

A. Alternative B (modified) has desired conditions that would promote biophysical features, such 

as cliffs, to be generally undisturbed by human activities and their associated geological, 

hydrological, and biological resources would be maintained (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). Another 

desired condition promotes specialized habitats for a variety of plant and animals species (FWBioPhys-Geo-DC-6). A guideline in the section for Geological Features states that projects should 

be designed and uses should be managed to maintain the integrity and function of cliffs and caves 

and where alteration of these resources cannot be avoided, they should be mitigated to mimic predisturbance conditions and function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). 

Although language in alternative B (modified) would not specifically avoid transmission lines in 

mixed conifer and ponderosa pine habitat like alternative A, other plan language could achieve 

the same end. Other plan components would mitigate the impacts from urban and rural 

development by locating and designing new and reconstructed overhead utility lines, support 

towers and other utility infrastructure to minimize adverse ecological and wildlife impacts (FWSpecUse-G-5); retaining vegetation in rights-of-way to allow for habitat for species and wildlife 

movement corridors if vegetation does not interfere with meeting vegetation clearance 

requirements (FW-SpecUse-G-6), and designing alternative energy developments, such as wind 

energy, to minimize or avoid impact to other uses and resources, in particular wildlife (FWSpecUse-G-11). New utility corridors should avoid research natural areas, geological areas, 

botanical areas, and environmental study areas (FW-SpecUse-G-10).These plan components 

address several risk factors for these species (urban and rural development; electrocution from 

transmission lines; collisions, injury or death associated with communication towers or energy 

development structures and large-scale wind and solar energy development) and should result in 

higher levels of survival and successful reproduction.

Alternative B (modified) emphasizes characteristic disturbances in species habitats more so than 

alternative A. This supports an underlying assumption of the revised plan that sustainable 

populations of native species would be maintained or enhanced where the ecosystems in which 

they occur or evolved are functioning properly. Desired conditions in Ponderosa Pine support 

this: “Frequent, low-severity fires (Fire Regime I) are characteristic in the vast majority of this 

ERU” (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-3).This would contribute to the viability of bald and golden eagles. 

This is also supported in fire management with a desired condition that wildland fires would not 

result in loss of ecosystem function (FW-Fire-DC-3). In addition, the emphasis on ecosystem 

function is better articulated in alternative B (modified) than alternative A. See FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 

FW-Soil-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-DC-2, 3, FW-Rip-All-G-2, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, FW-Rip-SprDC-1, and FW-WFP-DC-1. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

502

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has the following guideline: “Fire suppression 

techniques that minimize habitat and disturbance impacts should be used where there are 

federally listed and Southwestern Region sensitive species, consistent with public and firefighter 

safety” (FW-WFP-G-9). This is intended to mitigate or eliminate potential impacts that could 

occur with suppression tactics and would be beneficial to bald eagles. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends 3 wildernesses, which could be used by both eagles, 

probably mainly for foraging. Recommended wilderness would provide an additional area of low 

disturbance for eagles, but the recommended wilderness would also preclude restoration 

treatments that would require motorized equipment. With this restriction on motorized equipment, 

the forest would be less likely to conduct restoration treatments, which, over time, could increase 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire or slow the trend toward desired conditions in these areas. 

Like alternative A, alternative B (modified) has direction to follow conservation strategies, 

assessments or plans to improve the status of species and prevent Federal listing. Rather than 

restrict this to a few species, alternative B (modified) expands this direction via a forest wide 

guideline (FW-WFP-G-2). Following these conservation strategies or assessments could reduce 

the risk associated with bald eagles and golden eagles by providing more specific direction on 

species and project management. The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends using the 

“Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Bald Eagles in Arizona” (Driscoll et al. 2006) in 

conjunction with the “Bald Eagle National Management Guidelines” (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007c) to protect bald eagles in Arizona. For golden eagles, the Fish and Wildlife Service

has issued a report titled, “Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring 

Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle Management and Permit 

Issuance” (Pagel et al. 2010). 

Alternative B (modified) requires timing restrictions to be applied to projects and activities that 

have the potential to negatively affect bald eagles and golden eagles (FW-WFP-S-2). This 

standard addresses the disturbance risk factor for these species and should result in higher levels 

of survival and successful reproduction. Alternative A lacks timing restrictions for golden eagles.

Mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable in this alternative except on trails 

designated for this purpose. This use could result in disturbance to eagles in localized areas.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified) except for the following.

It has the same effects as alternative B (modified) for recommended wilderness except there are 

4,462 acres of Ponderosa Pine ERU in recommended wilderness (both eagles) and 1,333 

additional of acres of riparian forest types (for nesting bald eagles). There are nearly 91,000 acres 

of recommended wilderness in this alternative, which could be used for foraging. Eagles and their 

prey would benefit from the reduced disturbance in these areas in the short term, as they are 

considered for wilderness designation, and in the long term if they are designated as wilderness. 

Mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable in this alternative on any trails. 

This language would reduce disturbance to eagles in localized areas.

Alternative C is the only alternative that has areas designated as not suitable for recreational 

shooting. The designation of management areas as not suitable for recreational shooting would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

503

result in reduced disturbance within the following management areas totaling about 

588,223 acres: Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, 

Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, Second Chance, Walnut Canyon, Long Valley, and Sedona 

Neighborwoods Management Areas. These acres include areas that might already be excluded 

from recreational shooting by law. Areas designated as not suitable do not automatically become 

no recreational shooting areas. Subsequent environmental analysis (including public review and 

comment) and decisions need to be done to make this official. There are 5,268 acres in other areas 

that contain eagle habitat that are also not suitable for recreational shooting. These areas include 

Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (763 acres) Fern Mountain Botanical Area 

(186 acres), Oak Creek Research Natural Area (1,853 acres), Red Mountain Geological Area 

(1,201 acres), Mogollon Rim Botanical Area (339 acres), and Rocky Gulch Research Natural 

Area (926 areas). 

Alternative C is the only alternative with management areas designed to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife habitat. Design features to accomplish this would include low-disturbance non-motorized 

recreational activities; no net increase in the area of motorized dispersed camping corridors; 

limitations on the roads that provide public motorized access; and a ban on large group recreation 

events and large commercial tours, except in support of research. These management areas total 

377,106 acres and would emphasize native species including bald and golden eagles. They 

include Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone 

Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance Management Areas. They would reduce human 

disturbance in those areas where the area is not already protected by or in addition to existing 

designations such as wild and scenic rivers or inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 

Alternative D would set the scenic integrity objectives associated with the power line between 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness and Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness to a low rating (instead 

of a moderate rating) and would set the scenic integrity objectives associated with the energy 

corridor along State Highway 87 to a low rating (instead of a moderate or high rating). The 

assumption is that the width of a power line corridor would not change under a moderate scenic 

integrity objective, but can double in size under a low scenic integrity objective before it would 

be lowered to a very low scenic integrity objective category. Therefore, under alternative D, these 

segments could substantially increase in size, including the clearing of trees to meet regulations. 

It could get no larger than the distance between the Sycamore and Red Rock Wilderness 

boundaries in that area. This could increase transmission line size or number of lines within the 

corridor increasing localized risk to eagles. The risk could be mitigated by design. This 

alternative has the highest potential for risk to eagles from transmission lines.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of bald eagles and golden eagles, although individuals may be impacted by 

management activities or permitted uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing for bald eagles, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these species than 

alternative A because of updated plan guidance for the riparian forest types, the Ponderosa Pine 

ERU, and cliffs. In all alternatives, plan objectives would reduce the coarse filter threat of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

504

uncharacteristic fire and facilitate the growth of large trees in Ponderosa Pine ERU. 

Recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified) would slightly increase areas of low 

disturbance for this species. Alternative C would reduce disturbance to this species the most due 

to management areas that are not suitable for recreational shooting, management areas managed 

for reduced disturbance to wildlife, and more acres of eagle habitat in recommended wilderness. 

Alternative D would provide lower viability for these species than alternatives B (modified) and 

C in localized areas on the forest due to the lower scenic integrity objectives that could facilitate 

larger transmission lines or an increased number of lines within a transmission corridor. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, alternative A could result in take, as 

defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the forest. However, its plan guidance to 

minimize disturbance effects emphasizes bald eagles more so than golden eagles in terms of 

timing restrictions, does not address wind and solar energy sites, and allows mountain biking in 

geological and botanical areas, so the likelihood of unavoidable take at the project level would be 

higher than the other alternatives.

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, alternative B (modified) could 

result in take, as defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the forest. Its plan 

guidance minimizes disturbance effects to both bald eagles and golden eagles in terms of timing 

restrictions, addresses wind and solar energy sites, has the least amount of risk associated with 

energy development yet would allow mountain biking in geological and botanical areas, so the 

likelihood of unavoidable take is lower than alternative A and higher than alternative C at the 

project level. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences that apply to alternative B 

(modified), plus the differences analyzed above, alternative C could result in take—as defined in 

the Eagle Act—or bald or golden eagles on the forest, but alternative C would reduce disturbance 

to eagles in some parts of the forest more so than the other alternatives. When these area-specific 

restrictions are taken into account, this alternative would have the lowest likelihood of 

unavoidable take at the project level compared to the other alternatives. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences that apply to alternative B 

(modified), plus the differences analyzed above, alternative D could result in take—as defined in 

the Eagle Act— for bald or golden eagles on the forest, but alternative D would increase 

disturbance to eagles in some parts of the forest more so than the other alternatives. When these 

area-specific factors are taken into account, this alternative would provide the least protection for 

bald and golden eagles at the project level compared to the other alternatives.

Fish

Bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, longfin dace, roundtail and 

headwater chub, and Sonora sucker

These species have been grouped because they are all fish that share a similar combination of the 

following habitats: perennial streams and Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest. These habitats are evaluated in 

the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

505

Desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, roundtail and headwater chub, and Sonora sucker are 

Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Bluehead sucker and longfin dace are Other planning species. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Bluehead sucker is widely distributed within the Colorado and Columbia River basins. On the 

Coconino NF, Bluehead sucker is present in the Lower and Upper Clear Creek 5th HUC 

watersheds, associated with all three riparian forests (123.5 potential perennial stream miles). 

Desert sucker and Sonora sucker are found within overlapping habitats in the upper Verde and 

West Clear Creek watersheds and occurs in the Bill Williams, Salt, Gila, San Francisco, and 

Verde River drainages in Arizona and New Mexico. On the Coconino NF, these species are 

present in the Beaver Creek, Cherry Creek-Verde River, Fossil Creek-Verde River, Grindstone 

Wash-Verde River, Oak Creek, Sycamore Creek and West Clear Creek 5th HUC watersheds 

(193.9 potential perennial stream miles). 

Little Colorado sucker is endemic to the upper portions of the Little Colorado River and many of 

its north flowing tributaries. On the Coconino NF, Little Colorado sucker is present in East Clear 

Creek and associated perennial tributaries in the Lower and Upper Clear Creek 5th HUC 

watersheds (124.1 potential perennial stream miles).

Longfin dace is broad ranging in the lower Colorado River drainage, but it is rarely abundant in 

larger streams, or at elevations above 5,000 feet. On the Coconino NF, longfin dace are found in 

the Sycamore Creek, Beaver Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, Fossil Creek – Verde River, 

Grindstone Wash – Verde River, and Cherry Creek – Verde River 5th HUC watersheds 

(163.5 potential perennial stream miles).

A distinct population segment of roundtail chub, in combination with Headwater chub, was 

previously proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to list as threatened status under the 

Endangered Species Act; however, the proposed rule was withdrawn based on a thorough review 

of scientific and commercial data available. The former headwater chub (Gila nigra), has been 

combined with Roundtail chub (G. robusta) (Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 66 pp. 16981 – 

16988); however, they reside on the Southwestern Region’s sensitive species list as two separate 

species. They are grouped in this analysis because their habitats overlap. Roundtail chub is 

widespread in moderate to large rivers of the Colorado River Basin. In Arizona, it still occurs in 

the mainstem and tributaries (Fossil Creek) to the Verde and Salt Rivers. Roundtail chub are also 

still thought to occur in the Upper Clear Creek watershed. On the Coconino NF, roundtail chub 

are present in the Sycamore Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek-Verde River 5th HUC watersheds, in all riparian forest types, and in a wide range of 

elevations. They were historically present in Cherry Creek-Verde River, Dry Beaver, and 

Grindstone Wash-Verde River (350 potential perennial stream miles) (AZGFD 2015, USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2015). 

Headwater chub were historically restricted in overall range to the headwater reaches of major 

tributaries to the Verde River, tended to occupy lower elevations, and were only known from the 

Fossil Creek-Verde River 5th HUC watershed (Fossil Creek, 10.7 potential perennial stream 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

506

miles). There are two existing wilderness areas and three inventoried roadless areas within the 

Fossil Creek and lower Verde River watersheds where this species is found. These areas provide 

protections to about 39 percent of the watersheds under all alternatives (USDA Forest Service 

2013). 

Habitat

Adult bluehead sucker occupies a variety of habitats from headwater streams to large rivers, 

usually in moderated to fast-flowing water over a cobble-dominated substrate. Young fish are 

more likely to be encountered in shallower, backwater areas (AZGFD 2013b). On the Coconino 

NF, bluehead sucker is associated with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest. 

Desert sucker and Sonora sucker use medium to moderately large streams, at elevations ranging 

from 500 to 8,800 feet, and neither species occurs in reservoirs. Both are usually found in rapids 

and flowing pools of streams, primarily over bottoms of gravel-rubble (AZGFD 2002b). Both of 

these species are associated with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest. 

Little Colorado sucker use small to medium-sized creeks and rivers, usually gravel-bottomed 

pools with substantial cover. Little Colorado sucker is associated with perennial streams, 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest.

Longfin dace is found in shallower waters (less than 0.6 feet) of small to medium-sized streams 

with sand or gravel substrates. This species has a tendency to remain in open, shallow areas 

throughout much of the day and to congregate in shaded, deep areas when water temperatures 

exceed 75 °F. Longfin dace is associated with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian 

Forest, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. 

Roundtail chub occupy cool to warm water, mid-elevation streams and rivers where typical adult 

microhabitat consists of pools up to eight feet deep adjacent to swifter riffles and runs. Cover is 

usually present and consists of large boulders, tree rootwads, submerged large trees and branches, 

undercut cliff walls, or deep water. Smaller chub generally occupy shallower, low velocity water 

adjacent to overhead bank cover (AZGFD 2015). 

Headwater chub occupy complex stream habitats with deeper pools and obstructions near riffles 

and runs with nearby cover. They are generally found in gravel/cobble substrates with small 

boulders. 

Roundtail chub and headwater chub are associated with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest.

Risk Factors 

Primary risk factors for this group of species are invasive or non-native species and rarity. Nonnative species are the greatest fine filter threats to these fish species, because they can compete 

with or prey on native fish and they can introduce disease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

507

Environmental Consequences

Table 82 summarizes the viability analyses for bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado 

sucker, Sonora sucker, longfin dace, roundtail chub, and headwater chub. This table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 82. Analysis summary for Sensitive and Other fish species

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status 

Habitat Habitat 

condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Bluehead sucker

(Other) 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static M-H Poor, toward M-H 

Desert sucker

(Sensitive)

CWRF Fair, slowly

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M 

Little Colorado 

sucker

(Sensitive)

MBDRF Good, static 

to slowly 

toward

M Good, slowly 

toward

M 

Sonora sucker

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F3*

MWRF Good, static 

to slowly 

toward

M Good, slowly 

toward

M 

Longfin dace

(Other) 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static M-H Poor, toward M-H 

F Rank = F3* CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M 

MBDRF Good, static 

to slowly 

toward

M Good, slowly 

toward

M 

Roundtail chub 

and Headwater 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H 

chub

(Sensitive)

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H 

F Rank = F2* MBDRF Good, static 

to slowly 

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

508

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status 

Habitat Habitat 

condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

MWRF Good, static 

to slowly 

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H 

Management Effect Perennial streams = 4: Decline 

in habitat quality as a result of 

management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few.

CWRF, MBDRF, and MWRF = 

3: Plan components maintain 

or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained 

or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

* F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its 

habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat improvement and protections for 

projects for fish and wildlife species (1987 Plan, pages 23, 59, 64-6, and 87; FW-LndAdj-G-1; 

FW-Minerals-G-3; FW-RdsFac-G-7). Additionally, management applications under alternative B 

(modified), C, and D provide recommendations to managers regarding approaches for successful 

implementation of plan components, such as prioritization of work to benefit threatened and 

endangered species (Management Approaches for Roads and Facilities, All Riparian Areas, 

Stream Ecosystems, and Watersheds and Water). Efforts to protect and improve habitats for 

threatened and endangered and Southwestern Region Forest Sensitive species provide protections 

for all aquatic species within these habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

509

Alternative A

Table 82 shows that under alternative A, perennial streams would remain in poor condition with a 

static trend in relation to desired conditions primarily because nearly all perennial streams support 

non-native or invasive aquatic species, which were not present historically. Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest

and Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. All of these riparian forest 

types would mostly have a static trend or slowly trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood 

Willow, some portions of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, and Spring Creek, would be static 

due to high recreation or private land. In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, static trends are associated 

with the Oak Creek 5th code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. Trends that are slowly toward 

desired conditions are associated with the Beaver Creek and the Fossil Creek- Lower Verde River 

5th code HUCs except portions of Fossil Creek have a trend away from desired conditions where 

recreation use is high. Trends in Montane Willow would be static to slowly toward desired 

conditions, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC is trending toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 82, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

fish species is moderate to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Ranks of F3 or F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each habitat: perennial streams (high), CWRF (high), MBDRF (moderate), and MWRF 

(moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the 

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. Note that Fossil Creek would be an exception 

because historic flows have been restored, native fish populations have been re-introduced, and a 

fish barrier has been installed.

The management effect row in table 82 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 4 for 

perennial streams, which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or 

lack of management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be 

few. This is primarily because language is largely lacking for invasive and non-native aquatic 

species that were not present historically. These species can alter the composition, structure and 

processes of stream ecosystems. There is also lack of direction to implement TMDL plans which 

are designed to improve non-attaining and impaired waters. As described in the coarse filter: 

habitat section, the threat of dispersed recreation to riparian resources is not addressed forestwide 

in alternative A. Special areas such as the Verde Wild and Scenic River and wilderness, and the 

management areas within Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Area and the Sedona-Oak Creek 

Planning Area most specifically address the conflicts and strategies to resolve resource damage in 

riparian areas. This direction mainly addresses dispersed recreations impact to specific riparian 

areas where there have been past conflicts and resource damage, but it provides very limited 

direction when previously low use areas are “discovered” and see unexpected increases in 

recreation, such as Fossil Creek. As a result, alternative A addresses this threat sporadically 

compared with alternatives B (modified), C, and D, but it does mitigate some of the areas where 

the conflict is most pronounced. 

The management effect is classified as a 3 for Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, 

and Montane Willow riparian forest types, which means that plan components in alternative A 

maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area 

and thus contribute less to the viability of these species than the other alternatives. Alternative A 

does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian areas nor does it distinguish between 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

510

the riparian forest types yet it has some protective language. For example, alternative A would 

maintain or improve riparian forests and streamcourses because it has a focus on improving 

riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and 

channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as possible (1987 Plan, 

pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language includes the following: Only 

beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as utility line or 

roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of impact to 

riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent resource 

damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats (1987 

Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high priority 

(1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation in 

some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). However, plan 

language may preclude restoration of riparian forest habitat if conditions haves facilitated conifer 

establishment in riparian areas (1987 Plan, page 176). This may not be beneficial for riparian 

habitat and aquatic environments depending on site-specific circumstances. Language for mineral 

material excavation could allow mineral development in the riparian zone if the authorized 

activities are beneficial however the likelihood of beneficial mineral activities in these areas is 

low. Plan components in the Sedona-Oak Creek Ecosystem Area would mitigate the effects of 

livestock grazing and fire management activities on riparian communities (including perennial 

streams) however this direction does not apply forestwide. See the Coarse Filter: Habitat section 

for more detail. 

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 82 shows that under alternative B (modified) perennial streams would remain in poor 

condition, but the trend would be toward desired conditions. Fossil Creek and Spring Creek 

would be in fair to good condition because they have fish barriers to separate native from nonnative fish. 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would improve to good condition and trend slowly toward

desired conditions except portions of the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek and Dry Beaver 

Creek would improve faster (i.e., have a trend toward desired conditions).

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and would slowly 

move toward desired conditions except portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would 

remain static in areas of high recreation use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the 

Beaver Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUCs.

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition like alternative A except Upper 

Clear Creek 5th code HUC would improve. The trend would improve to slowly toward desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 82, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

fish species is moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining these species’ F Ranks of F3 or F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: perennial streams (high), and Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate) 

(table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat to which the species would be adapted. There would be localized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

511

exceptions such as in high recreation use areas in the Beaver Creek 5th code HUC where the 

likelihood that associated species would be limited would be high. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats 

associated with these fish species. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. For perennial streams, this rating is 

based on language regarding mitigating the effects of roads, connectivity of drainages, 

connectivity between streamcourses and upland habitats, and earthen stock tank locations (to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources) (See FW-ConstWat-G-1 and 2, FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 7 

and 9 and Connectivity under Wildlife and Plants Topics and Issues). Unlike alternative A, there 

is also plan language regarding invasive or non-native species. Detailed information on this plan 

language can be found in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section under Non-native or 

Invasive species. There are also three recommended wildernesses which would lessen the effects 

of roads, which can alter natural water flow patterns and alter natural sediment levels.

For Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, and Montane Willow riparian forest types, 

this rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that 

distinguish between the riparian forest types and that support their respective composition, 

structure, and function (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, 

riparian functional condition would improve faster than alternative A, especially along the Verde 

River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek. The desired conditions manage for 

vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone 

guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) 

(USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also 

contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by promoting properly 

functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological components to meet the 

needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

Alternative B (modified) also provides direction that better addresses the risk factors to these 

species. The desired conditions under alternative B (modified) support the trend to improved 

stream ecosystem function, collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow, and reduce or eliminate 

the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1; FW-Invas-G-1). Plan language includes 

guidance for restoring natural fire regimes, acquiring lands that contain important habitat needed 

for species viability, incorporating recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally listed 

or candidate species, and incorporating design features to maintain aquatic habitats for Forest 

Service sensitive species populations (FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). 

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) except that alternative C recommends two additional wilderness areas and six 

management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbance in the East Clear Creek 

watershed. Alternative C also provides recommendations for four additional new wilderness areas 

in the Fossil Creek-Verde watersheds. These wilderness and management areas would provide 

habitat benefits for these fish species through reduction of sediment input, motorized access, and 

damage to streamside vegetation. Some of these recommended wilderness areas overlap with 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

512

existing areas or are such a distance from perennial waters, that little increase in protected 

perennial stream habitat is likely from implementation of these areas (USDA Forest Service 

2013). However, the addition of these protected areas provides for protections on 48 percent of 

the East Clear Creek watersheds and 21 percent of the Fossil Creek-Verde watersheds, as opposed 

to the 3 percent under alternatives A, B (modified), and D. 

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D would designate the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contains no springs 

and smaller acreage than the area designated for both the Botanical and Geological Areas under 

alternative B (modified) and C). Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects 

associated with managing those areas as recommended wilderness would not occur. These areas 

would still be managed by the other forestwide, management area, and special area direction in 

alternative B (modified) with the corresponding effects discussed above in the alternative B 

(modified) section. These small changes would not change the conditions and trends in aquatic 

habitats from those provided by alternatives B (modified) and C for this species. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of these fish species, although individuals may be impacted by management 

activities or permitted uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward 

Federal listing for desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, roundtail and headwater chub, and 

Sonora sucker, which are Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified) and D better 

provide for the viability of these species than alternative A because of updated plan components 

for management of the different riparian forests, for invasive animal species management, for 

updated language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although 

alternative C would have the same effects as alternatives B (modified) and D, it would contribute 

slightly more to the viability of these species due to the additional protection provided in 

recommended wilderness in the watersheds for this species. Finally, alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D provide language that guides partnership development, water rights acquisition, as well as 

language that supports sustainability of perennial stream habitat, addresses invasive species, and 

provides for species viability.

Frogs and toads

Arizona toad, lowland leopard frogs, northern leopard frogs

These species are grouped together because they are all amphibians and share similar habitats and 

threats. Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forests, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests, 

Montane Willow Riparian Forests, Wetlands, Perennial streams, Ephemeral, and Intermittent 

Streamcourses, and Springs are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

Affected Environment 

Arizona toad is classified as an Other planning species. Lowland leopard frogs and northern 

leopard frogs are Southwestern Region sensitive species. Arizona toad and lowland leopard frogs 

are endemic species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

513

Distribution

Arizona toads occur in riparian areas in the southwest. On the Coconino NF, they are known from 

the East Clear Creek area. Historically they were found on West Clear Creek and the Verde River. 

Lowland leopard frogs are only known to occur in Fossil Creek, Walker Creek, and possibly in 

Oak Creek Canyon (only tadpoles observed) on the Coconino NF. Off the forest, lowland leopard 

frogs are currently known to occur in Spring Creek but only on the private land parcel, Josephine 

Tunnel (private land), Page Springs Fish Hatchery (State land), and Soda Springs (private land). 

Historic records for lowland leopard frogs are from Spring Creek, Verde River, Josephine Tunnel 

(private land), Oak Creek including the Canyon, and Fossil Creek. Unsurveyed, but suitable 

locations below the rim are numerous and include perennial streams (Red Tank Draw), various 

springs (Russell, Holly), and numerous earthen livestock tanks below the rim. 

The range of northern leopard frogs once included much of northern and central Arizona, but now 

their presence is reduced to three or four widely separated populations in east-central Arizona, in 

the Peach Springs area, in the Stoneman Lake area, and on the Navajo reservation. The Stoneman 

Lake area is on the Coconino NF and includes a wetland/earthen stock tank complex used by this 

frog, although historically it had a wider distribution on the forest. The Stoneman Lake 

population is extensive and is the only population in Arizona that is increasing in extent and 

numbers. 

Habitat

Arizona toads are associated with Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forests, Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forests, Montane Willow Riparian Forests, Wetlands, and Perennial 

Streamcourses. Ephemeral and Intermittent Streamcourses with perennial pools are important 

special features used for movements between suitable habitats.

Lowland leopard frogs are associated with Perennial Streamcourses, Springs, Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Wetlands. Ephemeral and 

Intermittent Streamcourses are important for movement between suitable habitats.

Northern leopard frogs are associated with Springs, Wetlands, and earthen stock tanks 

(constructed waters). Ephemeral and Intermittent Streamcourses are important for movement 

between suitable habitats. Although most earthen stock tanks were originally constructed for 

livestock, they also provide water and habitat for some wildlife species. They are widely 

distributed on the forest, having been constructed in a variety of ecosystems. Quality, size, and 

water permanence is influenced by many factors including geology and soil type, weather, depth, 

surface area, presence of aquatic or riparian plant species, presence of invertebrates, and presence 

of invasive, non-native species. Many earthen stock tanks were constructed in wetlands.

Risk Factors

Primary threats to these amphibian species are disease, invasive and non-native aquatic species, 

and their overall rarity. Leopard frogs are seldom found in association with non-natives including 

fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish. Arizona toads are additionally threatened by hybridization with the 

native Woodhouse’s toad.

Human activities can spread disease, which can affect survival and reproduction of these species. 

Chytridmycosis is a potentially fatal infectious disease of amphibians caused by the chytrid 

fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). This disease can be spread by moving 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

514

contaminated soil, water, or organisms to uncontaminated areas. Chytrid fungus has been found 

on the forest. Invasive and non-native aquatic species can compete with and prey on these species 

or modify their habitat. These species are known from only a few locations on the forest or their 

current population is substantially reduced from what it was historically. 

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section has more detail about At-Risk Species, 

Connectivity, and Disease/Non-native species.

Environmental Consequences

Table 83 summarizes the viability analyses for Arizona toads, lowland leopard frogs, and northern 

leopard frogs. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the Species 

Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition 

and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management 

effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan 

language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan 

decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The 

lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

515

Table 83. Analysis summary for frogs and toads

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Arizona toad

(Other)

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H

F Rank = F2*

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

M-H except H in 

Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code 

HUC

Good, slowly 

toward

M-H

Wetlands Good, toward** M-H Good, toward** M-H

Springs Fair***, slowly 

toward

H Fair***, slowly 

toward

H

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H

Ephemeral, 

Intermittent 

Streams****

Poor, static H Poor, slowly 

toward

H

Lowland leopard 

frog (Sensitive)

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

VH Good, slowly 

toward 

H

F Rank = F1* MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

H

Wetlands Good, toward** H Good, toward H

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH

Springs Fair***, slowly 

toward

VH Fair***, slowly 

toward

VH

Ephemeral 

Intermittent 

Streams 

Poor, static VH Poor, slowly 

toward

VH

Northern leopard 

frog

Wetlands Good, toward**  M-H Good, toward M-H

(Sensitive) Springs Fair***, slowly 

toward

H Fair***, slowly 

toward

H

F Rank = F2* Ephemeral 

Intermittent 

Streams**** 

Poor, static H Poor, slowly 

toward

H
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

516

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Constructed 

Waters

See discussions 

in alternatives 

below.

Management Effect Springs and Perennial 

Streams = 4: Decline in 

habitat quality as a result of 

management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few.

CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF, 

Wetlands, and Ephemeral 

and Intermittent Streams = 3: 

Plan components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some 

habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat 

or habitat elements is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration 

to some occurrences.

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. 

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat. F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. 

**For analysis of these species, wetland condition and trend are based on total acres of wetlands, which has the effect of 

giving greater weight to larger wetlands. The condition and trend is fair and slowly toward desired conditions when the 

number of individual wetlands is considered, instead of total wetland acres.

***For analysis of these species, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or 

good condition depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

**** For analysis of these species, ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses were considered to be accessible.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would employ either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

517

habitat for aquatic and riparian species, and connected downstream resources. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 23, 71, 72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1, 

and FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4, and FW-BioPhys-GeoG-8. 

Instream flow water rights would be maintained and procured at similar levels under all 

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74 and 206 and FW-Water-G-3). Procurement of instream flow 

water rights would improve the extent of uninterrupted streamflows across NFS lands thereby 

providing greater aquatic and riparian habitat continuity and resilience. 

All alternatives provide language for monitoring, including the use of aquatic macroinvertebrates 

as monitoring indicators for condition of waterways and riparian areas. Water quality monitoring 

using the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality standards is also supported under all 

alternatives.

Alternative A

Table 83 shows that under alternative A, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in 

fair condition and have a slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow, some 

portions of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, and Spring Creek, would be static due to high 

recreation or private land, such as the area around Childs, Spring Creek, Dry Beaver Creek, and 

private lands. 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. Static trends would 

be associated with the Oak Creek 5th code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. The trend 

would be static or moving slowly toward desired conditions except in the Beaver Creek, West 

Clear Creek and Oak Creek 5th code HUCs and portions of Fossil Creek where recreation 

impacts are high. Areas of private land would remain static as well. 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition with a majority of the habitat 

either static or trending slowly toward desired conditions, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code 

HUC is trending toward desired conditions. 

Wetlands would remain in good condition and slowly trend toward desired condition based on 

total acres of wetlands. The condition would be fair and trend toward desired conditions if the 

evaluation is based on the number of wetlands.

Springs would remain in fair condition with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

Accessible, unprotected springs would remain in poor condition, while springs that are 

inaccessible, protected, or undeveloped would remain in good condition. 

Perennial streams would remain in poor condition and slowly trend toward desired conditions. 

This condition is generally due to most streams having invasive and non-native animal species 

which is outside of the historic variability for streams. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses that are intersected by roads and are accessible would 

remain in poor condition with a static trend. Ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses that are 

inaccessible would have the same condition and trend. 

Constructed waters (earthen stock tanks) would be in varying conditions. All would be accessible 

by motorized vehicles because vehicles are necessary for tank construction and maintenance. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

518

They may or may not support invasive or non-native animal species. They may or may not have 

sufficient aquatic or riparian vegetation to shelter adults, egg, or tadpoles from predators. Tank 

depth and duration of water would be variable and influenced by soil suitability, location, and 

associated uses. Trend would be variable depending on the site-specific circumstances around 

each tank including water duration, location, weather, and use by livestock and wildlife. 

As shown in table 83, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is moderate-high to very high. These likelihoods were derived by combining these 

species’ F Ranks of F1or F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

(moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), wetlands (moderate, by acres), springs 

(high), perennial streamcourses (high), and ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses (high when 

accessible) (table 9 in volume IIa). There would be at least a moderate to moderate-high 

likelihood that earthen stock tanks could be a limiting factor to northern leopard frogs because 

they are designed primarily for livestock but are regularly used by a variety of wildlife species, 

because they may be smaller than and have shorter duration of water than more natural wetland 

habitat; and generally do not have the amount, distribution, or variety of food and cover that 

would naturally occur in a wetland environment. Low to moderate ratings are considered to be 

within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. Plan components are discussed further below and in the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat section by ERU or riparian forest type.

The management effect is classified as a 3 for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, Montane Willow Riparian Forest, wetlands, and ephemeral 

and intermittent streamcourses, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or 

improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, 

contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. Alternative A would 

maintain or improve riparian forests, wetlands, and ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses 

because it has a focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian 

vegetation, streambanks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as 

soon as possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language 

includes the following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and 

exceptions such as utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the 

extent and magnitude of impact to riparian areas (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire 

suppression may be used to prevent resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term 

adverse impacts to riparian habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian 

areas through land exchange is a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would 

manage commercial uses, and recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, 

pages 206-10, 206-22, 206-26, and 206-39). 

This alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the 

other alternatives because desired conditions for the different types of riparian areas are lacking 

and there is not a focus on functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). This is some protective language, however. Alternative A emphasizes watershed 

condition in a general sense by management area and special area (1987 plan, pages 75, 85, 139, 

145, 148, 162, 169, 172, 191, 194, 197, 206-84, 206-88, and 206-100). There is forestwide 

direction to maintain current satisfactory watershed conditions, improve any unsatisfactory 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

519

conditions to satisfactory by 2020, and evaluate watershed condition for its effect on turbidity 

(1987 plan, pages 23, 72, 73, 74). Alternative A also includes several standards and guidelines 

related to protecting water resources and stream riparian areas that would support dispersal 

habitat and movement corridors. These include: procurement of instream flow water rights; 

protection of riparian areas though filter strips; and maintaining 80 percent crown cover, 

80 percent emergent vegetation cover, and three age classes of woody riparian species (1987 Plan, 

page 174). There are no specific objectives for riparian habitat, but rather broadly defined goals 

for 80 percent riparian recovery by 2030 (1987 Plan, page 28), likely unachievable given the 

current rate of implementation on the forest. The existing plan includes standards and guidelines 

that emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems (1987 Plan, page 65-

5), that management strategies should move degraded riparian vegetation toward good condition 

as soon as possible and damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels should be 

prevented (1987 Plan, page 65-5). There are also objectives to construct 10 miles of fences per 

decade for the first two decades where necessary to protect key wet meadows, wetlands, and 

riparian regeneration from grazing (1987 Plan, page 175) and prioritize road closures where 

poorly designed or maintained roads are adjacent to or connected to stream courses where 

potential for increased runoff or sedimentation is high and where roads within streamcourses or 

wetlands (permanently or intermittently wet) are reducing hydrologic function (1987 Plan, page 

206-71). The trend on some portions of stream riparian areas would remain static due to impacts 

from other resource areas (e.g., recreation, livestock) and lack of specificity with regard to forest 

plan guidance. Refer to Watershed section, Volume I for additional information on Watersheds 

and Riparian Systems.

The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs and perennial streams, which means there 

is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from 

plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

For springs, desired conditions and guidelines are largely lacking, therefore managers do not have 

clear direction when restoring or protecting springs or to maintain or restore toward desired 

condition of properly functioning, resilient springs and spring riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). For perennial streams, alternative A contains plan components that provide some 

guidance to manage introductions or occurrences of non-native animal species specifically in the 

Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem and the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem area (1987 plan, pages 

206-9, 206-38, 206-72, 206-76). These areas include habitat for these species. These species can 

alter the composition, structure and processes of stream ecosystems. 

As described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section, the threat of dispersed recreation to riparian 

resources is not addressed forestwide in alternative A. Special areas, such as the Verde Wild and 

Scenic River and wilderness, and the management areas within Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Area and the Sedona-Oak Creek Planning Area most specifically address the conflicts and 

strategies to resolve resource damage in riparian areas. This direction mainly addresses dispersed 

recreations impact to specific riparian areas where there have been past conflicts and resource 

damage, but it provides very limited direction when areas that previously received low use are 

“discovered” and see unexpected increases in recreation, such as Fossil Creek. As a result, 

alternative A addresses this threat sporadically compared with alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D, but it does mitigate some of the areas where the conflict is most pronounced. 

Alternative A has language to follow approved or more recent conservation strategies or 

assessments only for certain species: for bald eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-100), Arizona 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

520

leatherflower (hairy clematis) (1987 Plan, page 65-7), Arizona bugbane (1987 Plan, page 206-10) 

and Flagstaff pennyroyal (1987 Plan, page 65 and 206-10), but lacks this direction for other 

species. 

Alternative A has standards and guidelines to ensure that the use of pesticides and herbicides does 

not cause surface water or groundwater contamination, including during site preparation for new 

timber stands or insect suppression projects (1987 Plan, pages 70, 73, and 121). 

Plan components in alternative A protect and minimize impacts of livestock grazing to riparian 

areas through management and fencing but also manage impacts through seeding (1987 Plan, 

pages 69, 176, and 174). It also allows salting in riparian areas to improve livestock management 

by concentrating cattle in certain areas, a practice that could be detrimental to these amphibians 

and their habitat (1987 Plan, pages 68 and 175). This is offset by a standard that requires that 

forage use be maintained at a level that assures recovery and continued existence of listed species 

(1987 Plan, pages 66-1 and page 174). This is beneficial for Arizona toad and lowland leopard 

frogs, because they share habitat with federally listed fish species. 

Alternative A would suppress fires that threaten the habitat of threatened and endangered, or 

sensitive species with the intent to minimize impacts to these habitats from fire (1987 Plan, page 

95); however, the language does not address the techniques used to suppress wildfires, some of 

which (such as fire retardant) can be harmful to species or their habitat nor does it recognize the 

beneficial role fire plays in some ecosystems. 

Plan language in alternative A focuses on removing unneeded stock tanks, restoring the area once 

the tank is removed, or exchanging an inefficient stock tank for a more efficient one under 

existing water rights. Construction and use of stock tanks is focused on improving water facilities 

for optimum production. Maintenance of waterlot fences would offer some protection from 

livestock and guidance that states open storage tanks and drinkers provide entry and escape ramps 

for wildlife would prevent these species from getting trapped/stuck. See 1987 Plan, pages 68, 68-

1, and 69. 

Alternative A does not contribute to the viability of species threatened by disease, because it lacks 

language regarding this threat.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 83 shows that under alternative B (modified), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would 

improve to good condition and trend slowly toward desired conditions except portions of the 

Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek would improve faster (i.e., have 

a trend toward desired conditions). 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and slowly move 

toward desired conditions except portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would remain 

static in areas of high recreation use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the Beaver 

Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUCs.

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and slowly move toward 

desired conditions. In the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC, Montane Willow Riparian Forest

would move toward desired condition at a faster rate than alternative A. 

Wetlands would remain in good condition trending toward desired condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

521

Springs would remain in fair condition and slowly trend toward desired condition, like alternative 

A. 

Perennial streams would remain in poor condition but the trend would be toward desired 

conditions because of updated plan components (see management effect discussion below). 

Ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses that are intersected by roads and are accessible would 

remain in poor condition, but the trend would improve to slowly toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 83, the overall likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on 

the forest is moderate-high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by combining these species’ F Ranks of F1 orF2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each habitat: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest (moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), wetlands (moderate, by 

acres), springs (high), perennial streamcourses (high), and ephemeral and intermittent 

streamcourses (high when accessible) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 

filter habitats associated with these amphibian species. This means that plan components in 

alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, and Montane Willow riparian forest types, 

this rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that support 

the composition, structure, and function of riparian forest types (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6, 

FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional condition would improve faster than 

alternative A, especially along the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver 

Creek. Plan components manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function (FW-Rip-RipTypeDC-1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and 

Plants section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 

For wetlands, this rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines 

that support wetland composition, structure, and function, connectivity between uplands and 

aquatic and riparian areas, and the maintenance of habitat for species (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2, 

FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 3, 5 and G-2, 3, FW-WFP-DC-6). In addition, riparian functional condition 

would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for vegetation diversity 

and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-G-2, 

FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian 

function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3, Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also contribute to the viability of species 

associated with riparian areas by promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the 

necessary physical and biological components to meet the needs of associated native species 

(FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

522

For springs, this rating is because alternative B (modified) has desired conditions and guidelines 

to guide spring management on the forest (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, 2, 3, 4 and FW-Rip-Spr-G-1, 2, 3, 

4), whereas these are largely absent in alternative A. 

For perennial, ephemeral, and intermittent streamcourses, this rating is based on language 

regarding mitigating the effects of roads, connectivity of drainages, connectivity between 

streamcourses and upland habitats, and earthen stock tank locations (to minimize impacts to 

sensitive resources) (see FW-ConstWat-G-1 and 2, FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 7 and 9). Alternative B 

(modified) would apply aquatic management zones or best management practices to perennial, 

intermittent, or ephemeral drainages to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological conditions 

of connected or downstream caves, karst, and lava tubes (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8). The water 

quantity or baseflows of intermittent and perennial streams would be sustained to mimic seasonal 

flow regimes and riparian ecosystems and corridors would promote the natural role of water, 

natural hydrogeomorphic processes, sediment movement and capture, woody debris recruitment 

and retention, and root masses, and maintain water tables (FW-Water-DC-5, FW-Rip-All-DC-1). 

Other updated desired conditions promote streamcourses having access to their floodplains and 

natural sinuosity, so flood energy can be dissipated without causing damage to the channel 

streambanks; promote natural disturbances in streamcourses; and provide more detailed desired 

conditions on the functioning of perennial and intermittent streamcourses and their floodplains 

(FW-Rip-Strm-DC-1, 2, 3). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has a desired condition that promotes ephemeral 

and intermittent streamcourses as habitat and movement corridor for species (FW-WFP-DC-4 and 

6). A management approach in Stream Ecosystems reminds managers that ephemeral

streamcourses may be protected at the project level depending on downstream water quality 

issues. Another management approach in the same section encourages coordination with local, 

State, private, and other Federal agencies to ensure that natural streamcourses are maintained and 

not fragmented by development which would maintain their function as movement corridors. 

This is beneficial for dispersal and movements between suitable habitats.

Alternative B (modified) proposes three recommended wildernesses, all of which contain 

ephemeral streamcourses. Plan components for recommended wilderness would be beneficial for 

riparian habitat and connected drainages because recommended wilderness would be managed to 

maintain or enhance primitive and undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and 

unique features; to reduce evidence of modern human control and manipulations; and motor 

vehicle uses should only occur for limited administrative and permitted activities to be consistent 

with wilderness character (FW-RWild-DC-1 to 3; FW-RWild-G-1 and 3). However, where 

riparian habitats and occupied or potential sites exist, there is often a need to conduct restoration 

activities such as thinning to improve adjacent watershed condition and waterflow, removing nonnative species, or fencing to exclude ungulate grazing. Guidelines for recommended wilderness 

could make it more difficult to implement some of these activities because of limitations on use 

of motor vehicles and direction to avoid construction of new facilities that cannot be made 

consistent with the area’s wilderness character. For fencing and other facilities supporting 

reintroduction at new sites, the cost could be increased by the need to mitigate visual impacts and 

projects may be harder to implement because of the potential difficulty of maintaining these 

structures if the area is designated by Congress.

In contrast to alternative A, plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes earthen stock 

ponds that are accessible to wildlife and requires that earthen stock ponds be managed to maintain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

523

water and habitat needed for species’ survival and reproduction, consistent with existing water 

rights. See FW-ConstWat-DC-2 and G-2. This is applies to, and is particularly beneficial for, 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species like the northern leopard frog. 

More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water 

quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2). Also, alternative B (modified) has a guideline that 

balances recreation activities, permitted uses, and management activities with soil function, 

riparian vegetation, and water quality at the stream reach scale (FW-Rip-RipType-G-3). This 

guideline would not apply to fine scale activities and facilities such as intermittent livestock 

crossing locations, water gaps, or other infrastructure used to manage impacts to riparian areas at 

a larger scale. This guideline is intended to protect riparian function, especially in areas of high 

recreation use such as Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, and Fossil Creek.

Alternative B (modified) has desired conditions that protect riparian resources including soil 

conditions and water quality, while recognizing the demand for and need to properly manage the 

public’s dispersed recreation opportunities. A forestwide desired condition for dispersed 

recreation supports managing dispersed recreation to avoid resource damage (FW-Rec-Disp-DC3). Several guidelines about dispersed recreation would manage trails, camping, and recreation 

types to prevent further resource damage to riparian resources (FW-Rec-Disp-G-1 to 5). 

Plan components in alternative B (modified) specify that livestock grazing maintains desired 

conditions of plant communities (FW-Graz-DC-2; FW-Graz-G-2). They also protect and 

minimize impacts to riparian areas by recommending that livestock use be restricted to the 

dormant season, recommending utilization levels on woody vegetation, maintenance of adequate 

vegetative cover to protect streambanks, and state that riparian areas are rarely negatively 

impacted by livestock (FW-Graz-G-7). This would maintain riparian structure, composition, and 

promote proper functioning. Guidelines are in place to reduce cattle concentrations and 

sedimentation into connected waters by specifying that range improvements should not interfere 

with riparian function and rare species, and further specifies a minimum distance of salts and 

supplements from riparian areas (FW-Graz-G-4 and 5). 

Alternative B (modified) addresses uncharacteristic flooding by maintaining natural hydrographs 

through time and by promoting riparian forest composition and structure that would reduce the 

effects of flooding (FW-Rip-Strm-DC-4, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-2). For stream riparian areas, 

functional riparian areas and herbaceous vegetation provide protection from uncharacteristic 

wildfire and flooding disturbance, resiliency, and should filter sediment and protect water quality 

(FW-RIP-RipType-DC-2, 3, 4). This alternative also contains a guideline protects riparian 

resources by recommending against issuing a lands and recreation special use permit for activities 

proposed to occur within 200 feet of perennial streams, springs, or waters that contribute to or 

support sensitive resources, such as federally listed or Southwestern Region sensitive species 

(FW-SpecUse-G-3). 

Alternative B (modified) has objectives to restore or enhance at least 60,000 acres of terrestrial 

wildlife habitat during each 10-year period of the life of the plan; implement at least 10 activities 

to benefit sensitive species; restore 5 to 10 wetlands currently not in proper functioning condition 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan; restore riparian function to at least 25 springs 

identified as not in proper functioning condition during each 10-year period during the life of the 

plan; and restore or enhance at least 70 miles of stream habitat during each 10-year period over 

the life of the plan (FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-WFP-O-2, 3, 4). These 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

524

improvements could contribute to the viability of these species depending on where they are 

implemented. 

In contrast to alternative A, plan language in alternative B (modified) addresses connectivity of 

habitats forestwide and addresses interconnected terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats through 

desired conditions that would promote access to new habitats, perpetuation of genetic diversity, 

species movements, dispersal, and migration (FW-Water-DC-4, FW-Rip-All-DC-3, FWTerrERU-All-DC-3, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-2, FW-WFP-DC-3, 6, FW-WFP-G-13). This language 

would maintain or improve habitat permeability and mitigate effects to linkages. Particularly 

beneficial components include a guideline to design bridges, culverts, stream crossings on 

permanent roads, and diversion structures to allow safe passage for aquatic organisms (FWRdsFac-G-9) and not issuing lands and recreation special-use permits for activities proposed to 

occur within 200 feet of perennial streams, springs, or waters that contribute to or support 

sensitive resources such as federally listed or Southwestern Region sensitive species (FWSpecUse-G-3). This guidance makes an allowance for impermeable structures, e.g., to allow 

movement barriers where it is necessary to protect native aquatic species from non-native aquatic 

species. See Connectivity in Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except it has 13 recommended 

wildernesses instead of only 3. Eight additional management areas are proposed to emphasize 

reduced human-related disturbance. The East Clear Creek MA has occupied habitat for Arizona 

toad and historic habitat for northern leopard frog. Hospital Ridge, Knoll Lake, and Limestone 

Pasture MAs lie within the East Clear Creek drainage. Thirty percent of the Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest habitat on the forest occurs within these four management areas. 

Guidelines for these management areas would reduce disturbance from motorized dispersed 

camping and motor vehicle use in 30 percent of the Montane Willow Riparian Forest compared to 

alternatives A, B (modified), and D. This could positively affect Arizona toads by reducing 

riparian vegetation impacts (i.e., loss of hiding cover and habitat to which egg masses could be 

attached) from disturbance from recreational and motorized uses of the area. 

While desired conditions and guidelines in both alternatives B (modified) and C support habitat 

for Arizona toads and northern leopard frogs by minimizing the potential for impacts to potential 

riparian habitat, alternative C has more focus on managing for ecological conditions. MAEastClr-DC-3 envisions protection and restoration of springs, streams, and wetlands, and MAEastClr-DC-5 calls for properly functioning wildlife habitats. In addition, for the Hospital Ridge, 

Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, and Second Chance MAs, there are desired conditions that call 

for ecological integrity of watersheds, headwater environments, native vegetation, and soils, 

envision protection and restoration of springs, streams, and wetlands, and DC-5 call for properly 

functioning wildlife habitats (Appendix F, MA-HospRdg-DC-1, 3, 5, 10, 12, MA-KnollLake-DC1, 3, 5, 10, and 12, MA-Limestone-DC-1, 3, 5, 10, 12, MA-ScndChnc-DC, 1, 3, 5, 10, 11). Each 

of these four MAs also have three guidelines. They provide guidance to have no net increase in 

motorized dispersed camping corridors (G-1), to limit roads that provide motorized access (G-2), 

and to not allow large group recreation events and commercial tours (Appendix F, MA-HospRdgG-1, 2, 3, MA-KnollLake-G-1, 2, 3, MA-Limestone-G-1, 2, 3, MA-ScndChnc-G-1, 2, 3). 

Collectively, these are expected to contribute positively to riparian and wetland habitats for these 

species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

525

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there are no recommended 

wildernesses. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Arizona toads, lowland leopard frogs, and northern leopard frogs, although 

individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the 

alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for lowland leopard frogs and northern 

leopard frogs, which are Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

better provide for the viability of these species than alternative A, particularly because these 

alternatives better address connectivity, disease and non-native or invasive species, and have plan 

language specifically for different types of riparian areas.

High-elevation Plants: Fine Filter 

Bearded gentian, blackroot sedge, bristlecone pine, common moonwort, crenulate 

moonwort, Dane’s dwarf gentian, different-nerve sedge, graceful buttercup, reflected 

moonwort, and spider saxifrage 

The species are grouped together for analysis because they mainly occur in the subalpine 

grassland portion of Montane/Subalpine Grassland, Spruce-Fir, and Alpine Tundra ERUs. These 

habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

All of these species are classified as Other forest planning species except crenulate moonwort is a 

Southwestern Region Forest Service sensitive species.

Affected Environment 

Distribution 

The known distribution of bearded gentian includes portions of New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, 

and Arizona. It is generally found above timberline on the San Francisco Peaks. 

The known distribution of blackroot sedge includes high elevations on mountain ranges 

throughout the Intermountain West. It occurs in meadows and dry areas with subsurface moisture, 

and has been collected on the San Francisco Peaks above timberline in the alpine tundra. 

The known distribution of bristlecone pine is the high mountains of Colorado, New Mexico and 

Arizona (USDA Plants). Distribution on the Coconino NF is on the San Francisco Peaks. 

The known distribution of common moonwort is from parts of Canada and throughout parts of 

the United States. It is found in high mountain habitats of all southwestern states although it is not 

common in the areas in which it occurs. 

The known distribution of crenulate moonwort includes central and southern California to central 

Arizona and Montana. It is found on the San Francisco Peaks above tree line. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

526

The known distribution of Dane’s dwarf gentian includes portions of New Mexico, Colorado, 

Montana, and Arizona (AZGFD 2004). Dane’s dwarf gentian is an annual plant that grows at high 

elevations among boulders (Mason 1998). Occurrences of Dane’s dwarf gentian are generally 

above timberline in the Alpine Tundra ERU. 

The known distribution of different-nerve sedge is in mid to high elevations throughout North 

America. Different-nerve sedge has been collected on the San Francisco Peaks above timberline. 

Graceful buttercup is narrowly endemic to San Francisco Peaks near timberline where it grows in 

moist ground (Benson 1948). It often occurs in meadows or open areas in coniferous forests, 

including openings created by avalanches. 

Reflected moonwort occurs from central Colorado southwestward through southern Utah to 

northern Arizona in mountain meadows and forested areas. 

The known distribution of spider saxifrage is alpine tundra areas in Arizona, New Mexico, 

Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. It grows in alpine meadows and on rocky slopes. 

Habitat

Common moonwort occurs in Alpine Tundra, Spruce-Fir, and the subalpine portion of 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERUs. 

Bristlecone pine and reflected moonwort occur in the Spruce-fir ERU.

Graceful buttercup occurs in the Spruce-Fir and Alpine Tundra ERUs.

The occurrences of crenulate moonwort, bearded gentian, blackroot sedge, Dane’s dwarf gentian, 

different nerve sedge, and spider saxifrage are within the Alpine Tundra ERU. On the Coconino 

NF, alpine tundra occurs only on the San Francisco Peaks and there are only about 939 acres of 

this ERU.

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distribution. They are vulnerable 

to perturbations in the environment because of their small population sizes and they are only 

known from the San Francisco Peaks. Off-trail hiking reduces the vigor, maintenance, and 

survival of tundra plant species. Avalanche abatement reduces slope stability and may result in 

loss of plants from landslides, if they occur where avalanche abatement occurs. Another potential 

risk to bristlecone pine is white pine blister rust, a non-native fungal disease that affects certain 

species of pine including southwestern white pine, limber pine and bristlecone pine, all of which 

occur on the San Francisco Peaks. This disease is not currently known to be present on the forest, 

but could severely impact the occurrence of white pine should it occur. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 84 summarizes the viability analyses for these high-elevation plants species. This table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

527

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 84. Analysis summary for high-elevation fine filter plants

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Blackroot sedge, 

Dane’s dwarf 

gentian, differentnerve sedge, spider

saxifrage (All are 

Other species)

F Rank = F1*

AT Good, away H Good, away H 

Crenulate moonwort 

(Sensitive), bearded 

gentian (Other) 

F Rank = F2*

AT Good, away M-H Good, away M-H 

Bristlecone pine 

(Other) 

F Rank = F3*

SF Fair, toward M-H Fair, toward M-H 

Common moonwort

(Other) 

MSG Good at short 

term then Fair, 

away

Short term: M

Long term: H

Good, toward M 

F Rank = F1* SF Fair, toward VH Fair, toward VH 

AT Good, away H Good, away H 

Graceful buttercup

(Other) 

SF Fair, toward VH Fair, toward VH 

F Rank = F1* AT Good, away H Good, away H 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

528

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Reflected moonwort 

(Other) 

F Rank = F1*

SF Fair, toward VH Fair, toward VH 

Management Effect AT= 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area. 

MSG = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

SF = 4: Decline in habitat quality 

as a result of management or 

lack of management that result 

from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few.

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

* F1: Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of their habitats. * F2: Rare on the forest 

within their habitat - occupies a small portion of their habitat. *F3: Uncommon on the forest within its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

These species occur in the same habitat as San Francisco Peaks ragwort and benefit from the 

actions taken to protect the ragwort as a federally threatened species (see section on San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort).

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). This would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

529

beneficial for all species, because implementation of this direction would avoid or limit grounddisturbing activities that could cause loss of protective vegetative groundcover, and detrimental 

soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high burn severity and sensitive soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that have high wind erodibility when 

exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices

should be developed. Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects 

occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion 

hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. In addition, 

disturbance to plants from off-trail hiking would be low for all alternatives because there is an 

area closure that prohibits off-trail hiking in the habitat. Off-trail hiking would be prohibited 

under all alternatives (1987 Plan, page 108; SA-Wild-S-3). This is discussed further in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics: Disturbance to Plants section above.

Avalanche control in the Alpine Tundra ERU associated with the Arizona Snowbowl ski area was 

also identified as a risk. Avalanche control is regulated by a special-use permit administered at the 

District level. 

Habitat for all these species is in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, although some portions of the 

habitats are outside the wilderness boundary. Plan language for designated wilderness would 

contribute to the viability of these species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be 

functioning properly and would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the 

wilderness area; management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or 

move toward desired conditions for wilderness and other resources; and use levels should be 

managed to prevent wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 

108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). Overnight camping and the use of recreational 

livestock and pack animals are prohibited in this wilderness above treeline, as well, and would 

reduce the impact of recreational use on the species and their habitat (1987 Plan, page 108, SAWild-S-3 and 4). 

All alternatives close Alpine Tundra to off-trail hiking during snow-free periods (1987 Plan, 

pages 108; 110; SA-Wild-S-3), prohibit horse and pack stock (except for limited administrative 

use) on the Humphrey’s Trail and Weatherford Trail above Doyle Saddle; prohibit camping above 

tree line; and prohibit recreational livestock above tree line or in the watersheds draining into the 

Inner Basin (1987 Plan, page 108; MA-Peaks-S-1, 3; MA-InBsn-S-1; SA-Wild-S-4). These 

measures protect the fragile environment of Alpine Tundra and rare plants. Ground disturbance is 

also reduced because the Alpine Tundra is closed to grazing and is not part of any allotment (1987 

Plan, page 110; Chapter 4 of Revised Plan, Grazing Suitability, table 12). The portion of Alpine 

Tundra in the Inner Basin is limited to day-use foot traffic (1987 Plan page 108; MA-InBsn-G-7). 

Alternative A

Table 84 shows that under alternative A, Montane/Subalpine Grassland would be in good 

condition in the short term and fair condition in the long term and in both cases, a trend away 

from desired conditions. Spruce-fir would be in fair condition and trend toward desired condition, 

and Alpine Tundra would be in good condition and trend away from desired conditions. 

As shown in table 84, the overall likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on 

the forest is moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these high-elevation species’ F Ranks of F1, F2, and F3 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: Alpine Tundra (moderate), Spruce-fir (high), and 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

530

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (low in short term, moderate in long term) (table 9 in volume IIa). 

Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the 

habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for Alpine Tundra. 

This means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the 

viability of these species than the other alternatives. The management effect is classified as a 4 for 

Spruce-Fir, which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

Alternative A lacks specific plan language for Alpine Tundra or Spruce-Fir ERUs. Instead, 

guidance is embedded within general direction for wilderness and specific direction for the 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness (1987 Plan, page 108). 

Portions of the Alpine Tundra and Spruce-Fir ERUs overlap Management Area 15, Developed 

Recreation Sites. The management emphasis is developed recreation. Facility development at the 

Snow Bowl ski area is guided by the Ski Area Master Development Plan which is based on 

approved environmental analysis (1987 Plan, page 188). Standards and guidelines state that the 

Snow Bowl special-use authorization area would be fenced to physically exclude grazing which 

would be beneficial for the habitat and associated species because vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, and accelerated soil erosion from livestock grazing would be avoided (1987 plan, 

page 190). Benefits would be limited because wildlife use can be high in the few areas with lower 

recreation use and the area is heavily modified as a result of ski run development and hazard tree 

removal. Effects of the ski area to vegetation and other ecological resources are addressed 

through environmental analysis for the special-use permit at the district level. 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU occurs in many management areas in alternative A, mainly as 

inclusions of small (although some are large) meadows embedded in forested ERUs. The 

common moonwort is associated with the subalpine portion of the Montane/Subalpine ERU, 

which is mainly located in the higher portions of the Hart Prairie, San Francisco Peaks and Inner 

Basin areas. Standards and guidelines would maintain existing mountain meadows by removing 

invading overstory, stabilizing gullies to raise the water table, scarify the soil, seed with 

appropriate grass and forage species, and increase forage production by attaining a balanced 

composition of cool and warm season forage species. Standards and guidelines would also control 

livestock grazing to allow adequate regeneration of grasses and forbs, prevent accelerated surface 

erosion and gully formation; and avoid or minimize roads in this MA where possible (1987 Plan, 

pages 120, 160). Although this language is generally beneficial for common moonwort and its 

habitat, soil scarification, seeding, and emphasis on forage production could negatively impact 

moonwort and its habitat by increasing ground disturbance and ungulate use, resulting in soil 

compaction or increased competition for nutrients and water. 

Alternative A would address the risk of white pine blister rust in the Spruce-Fir ERU through its 

inclusion of plan goals to “[m]anage resources to prevent a buildup of insects and diseases to 

prevent or reduce serious, long-lasting hazards through integrated pest management” (1987 Plan, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

531

page 23). Standards and guidelines for insect and disease management also stipulate monitoring 

of insect and disease activities on all land, and evaluation of the extent control measures are 

needed to protect suitable or unsuitable areas (1987 Plan, page 70). Although the language in all 

alternatives supports managing for sustainable populations of native species, alternative A lacks 

forestwide language that directly addresses the significant threats of disease and invasive, nonnative animals. Because of this, alternative A has a lower viability effectiveness than the other 

alternatives. 

Small portions of the Spruce-Fir and Alpine-Tundra ERUs occur within Management Area 16, 

Inner Basin. Beneficial language would maintain or improve habitat or minimize grounddisturbing activities for all of these high-elevation plant species. The language includes 

emphasizing good watershed condition, closing the area to grazing, allowing only daytime 

dispersed use (hiking and mountain biking), limiting vehicle access to City and Federal use, and 

closing the area to recreational livestock such as llamas, mules, or horses (1987 Plan, pages 191 

and 192). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 84 shows that under alternative B (modified), Montane/Subalpine Grassland would be in 

good condition with a trend toward desired conditions (instead of away as in alternative A); 

Spruce-Fir would be in fair condition and trend toward desired condition, and Alpine Tundra 

would improve and be in good condition and trend away from desired conditions primarily due to 

climate change.

As shown in table 84, the overall likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on 

the forest is moderate to very high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these high-elevation species’ F Ranks of F1, F2, and F3 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: Alpine Tundra (moderate), Spruce-fir (high), and 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 

filter habitats associated with high elevation plant species. This means that plan components in 

alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has specific language for Alpine Tundra and 

Spruce-Fir ERUs that emphasizes ecological conditions, composition, structure, and natural 

disturbances and provides protection for endemic species like the graceful buttercup (FWTerrERu-DC-1, 2, G-1, FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1-11). This contributes more to the viability of 

these high-elevation species than alternative A. 

Alternative B (modified) better addresses the threat of invasive species and disease than 

alternative A by supporting native species and addressing disease and invasive or non-native 

species forestwide. The forestwide desired conditions for non-native or invasive species (FWInvas-DC-1 and 2) and guidelines (FW-Invas-G-1 through 3) apply to all organisms. Alternative 

B (modified) includes desired conditions that “[i]nvasive species are absent or exist at levels 

where they do not disrupt ecological functioning or affect the sustainability of native and 

desirable non-native species. Invasive species includes plants, animals, diseases, and insects. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

532

(FW-Invas-DC-1).” Alternative B (modified) would better address the threat of exotic spruce 

aphid and white pine blister rust and the resulting loss of spruce or white pine species that would 

alter vegetative composition and structure and increase the risk of fire in Spruce-Fir ERU.

Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity better than alternative A. Forestwide 

guidance in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides desired conditions for properly functioning 

ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that support native plants and animals (FWWFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components for sensitive and/or endemic species to 

carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G-10). These components are 

complementary to the components for all ecosystems and all terrestrial ecosystems and provide 

additional assurance for the viability of these species. Additional information and analysis is 

discussed under the At-risk topic and the Disturbance (plants) topic in the Wildlife and Plant 

Topics and Issues section.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives provide for the 

viability of crenulate moonwort, bearded gentian, blackroot sedge, bristlecone pine, Dane’s dwarf 

gentian, different-nerve sedge, graceful buttercup, reflected moonwort, and spider saxifrage, 

although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of 

the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for crenulate moonwort, which is a 

Forest Service sensitive species. Plan components in alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

contribute more to the viability of these species because there is updated language for the ERUs, 

at-risk and rare species, and for invasive and non-native animals. 

Pinyon Juniper Plants

Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, western mousetail and Yavapai wild 

buckwheat

These species are grouped together because most of their occurrences are in the Pinyon Juniper 

ERUs. Several occur in other ERUs as well but not as frequently. All ERUs are more fully 

evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Rarity and disturbance are more fully evaluated in 

the At Risk Species and Disturbance to Plants topics in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics 

section.

All of these species are classified as Other forest planning species except Flagstaff beardtongue is 

a Southwestern Region Forest Service sensitive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

533

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Flagstaff beardtongue, classified as a Southwestern Region sensitive species, is endemic to 

northern Arizona. On the Coconino NF, documented locations include Anderson Mesa, near Lake 

Mary, Luke Mountain, Mormon Lake, Stoneman Lake, along the Schnebly Hill Road, and along 

Oak Creek. 

The known distribution of Jones’ wild buckwheat, classified as an Other planning species, is 

northern Arizona. It occurs mostly in Coconino County, with scattered populations just entering 

Mohave and Navajo counties. Most occurrences on the forest are east of Flagstaff in areas such as 

Cosnino and Winona. 

The known distribution of western mousetail, classified as an Other planning species, is restricted 

to Arizona and New Mexico. 

Yavapai wild buckwheat is classified as an Other planning species. It is endemic to the Mogollon 

Rim across northern Arizona and in northern Yavapai County. 

Habitat

Flagstaff beardtongue occurs in Ponderosa Pine and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs. It 

occurs on dry slopes, in openings and along edges of openings, and in forested areas.

Jones’ wild buckwheat occurs primarily in Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU, but also in Ponderosa 

Pine ERU. Its habitat is rocky limestone, sandstone flats, and outcrops. 

Most occurrences of western mousetail are in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU, but it also 

occurs in the Ponderosa Pine ERU. It is found on moist soils or soils that are periodically 

inundated or wet. 

Yavapai wild buckwheat occurs in Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU, where it can be found in 

gravelly to rocky volcanic soil and outcrops. 

These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distribution. Disturbance to 

plants is also a risk from management activities, such as vegetation treatments, fire, and road 

work. The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At-risk 

Species and Disturbance to Plants. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 85 summarizes the viability analyses for Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, 

western mousetail, and Yavapai wild buckwheat. This table was developed using the analysis 

process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, 

F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their 

habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

534

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.

Table 85. Analysis summary for pinyon juniper plants 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and status Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Flagstaff beardtongue 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

PJES Fair, away L-M Fair, away L-M 

Jones’ wild 

buckwheat (Other) 

F Rank = F2* 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term then 

away at long 

term 

M-H Low and high 

objectives: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

slowly away at 

long term

M-H 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

trending 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, trending 

toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

trending 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, trending 

toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Western mousetail PJES Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 

(Other, restricted 

distribution)

F Rank = F2*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

535

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and status Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Yavapai wild 

buckwheat (Other, 

endemic) 

F Rank = F2*

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term then

away at long 

term 

M-H Low and high 

objectives: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then

away at long 

term 

M-H 

. 

Management Effect All ERUs = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

All ERUs = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area

*F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its 

habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that 

have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, projectspecific best management practices should be developed. Finally, specific project design features 

would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when 

disturbed. 

Alternative A

Table 85 shows that under all alternatives Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain in fair 

condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term due to expected mechanical 

treatments and burning using wildfire for resource objectives. However, the trend for the Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass ERU is expected to move away from desired conditions in the long term, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

536

because generally, the treatment level is insufficient to offset the negative effects of excess 

regeneration and closing canopies. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition, but would trend away from 

desired conditions due to departure in the fire return interval and increases in trees and shrubs.

Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition with these species 

and facilitate a higher fire severity than these plants evolved with thereby degrading the habitat.

Table 85 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition in the short term, then improve 

to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The improved 

vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the 

high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation 

quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because more acres 

would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the 

short and long term. 

As shown in table 85, the likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on the 

forest is low-moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by using the process in table 9 in volume IIa and combining these species’ F Rank of F3 and F2 

with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: Pinyon Juniper with Grass

(low-moderate), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low 

treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub (low-moderate). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all the habitats in 

this group, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the 

viability of these species than the other alternatives. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, the emphasis on the use of 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to achieve management objectives associated with 

range and watershed condition could maintain or improve habitat for these species (1987 Plan, 

pages 148 through 155; 162 through 165). However, the management effect rating of 3 is because 

direction is generally outdated. For example, alternative A does not distinguish between the three 

pinyon juniper types, which differ in composition, structure, and processes. The plan provides 

little direction on desired conditions for these ERUs, as they are lumped into the broad vegetation 

category of Pinyon Juniper, and plan direction varies only by slope. Vegetation structure, and 

consequently, habitat for these species, would not be equitably, or naturally, distributed across the 

landscape. The recommended silvicultural systems provide sufficient flexibility to move toward 

desired conditions; however, the direction to manage cover in Pinyon Juniper with Grass would 

leave too much canopy cover across the landscape to return to the desired grassland state of this 

ERU and areas of too much canopy cover would not favor habitat for these species. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in both pinyon juniper

types, but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the 

wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, and 165) and the language to manage 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

537

wildfires for resource objectives in wilderness impedes the use of this tool (1987 Plan, pages 111–

112). This would limit the restoration of fire as a natural process in the wildland-urban interface

and in wilderness, and canopy cover and shrub and tree density would be expected to increase in 

these areas. There would also be increased potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban 

interface and wilderness portions of these ERUs. There are 4,184 acres of Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass (0.02 percent of ERU) and 47,893 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (18 percent of 

the ERU) in designated wilderness. This would not be favorable for these species.

Prescribed fire and seeding may be used to achieve resource objectives in these areas (1987 Plan, 

page 148). However, no direction was provided on the appropriate seed mix, only stating that a 

mixture of warm and cool season grasses should be used. Non-native grass species in the seed 

mix could negatively affect Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, Yavapai wild 

buckwheat, and western mousetail through competition for nutrients and water. 

Forestwide plan components for soil would contribute to the viability of these species by 

maintaining or improving soil productivity and watershed conditions where needed (1987 Plan, 

page 23). 

There are 639 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in the proposed West Clear Creek 

Research Natural Area, which is located in the West Clear Creek Wilderness. There would be no 

motorized or mechanized use in this research natural area and it would be managed to maintain 

primitive undeveloped characteristics and to preserve its suitability for designation. Primitive 

hiking and overnight camping would be allowed, based on carrying capacity. Alternative A 

promotes trailhead development at Bull Pen Ranch, about 2 miles south of the research natural 

area. This could increase trampling and compaction of the habitat for these species from 

recreation near the trail, but could decrease recreation related off-trail impacts as hikers and 

horseback riders use the designated trail (1987 Plan, pages 100, 107,195). 

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape, while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as Flagstaff 

beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, and western mousetail. Ponderosa pine is mostly managed 

for Mexican spotted owls or northern goshawks under forestwide direction. Areas managed for 

Mexican spotted owl PACs and nest/roost characteristics tend to have higher canopy closure than 

areas outside of these areas. Understory in these areas may be less abundant or vigorous due to 

the canopy closure. Areas outside of those managed for nest/roost characteristics and Mexican 

spotted owl habitat outside of PACs could have better habitat for these two species in areas where 

natural canopy gap processes occur and natural variation includes small openings. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5. 

Ponderosa pine areas outside of Mexican spotted owl habitat are managed for northern goshawks. 

Plan direction for northern goshawks would maintain habitat for Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ 

wild buckwheat, and western mousetail because Ponderosa Pine would be managed for a mosaic 

of vegetation densities (overstory and understory); 40 percent of the areas in young forest, 

seedling/sapling or grass/forb/shrub structure would not have canopy cover guidelines; and there 

would be more openings than areas managed for denser stand conditions. See 1987 Plan, page 65-

7, 65-9, and 65-10. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

538

Additional management direction for ponderosa pine is in Management Area 3 (Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer less 40 percent slope) and this direction has both positive and negative 

aspects. Direction to broadcast seed following burns using a high production multi-growing 

season species to attain a balanced composition of cool and warm season forage species could 

have a negative effect on these two species due to competition for nutrients and water with nonnative species that could be a part of this seed mix. However, language to maintain open 

meadows in ponderosa pine, eliminate invading overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could 

improve habitat for this species. See 1987 Plan, page 120. 

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 93, 94, 137. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this rating is because 

alternative A does not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types, which differ from each 

other in composition, structure, and processes. The revised plan provides little direction on 

desired conditions for these ERUs, as it is lumped into the broad vegetation category of Pinyon 

Juniper, and plan direction varies only by slope. Consequently, vegetation structure would not be 

equitably distributed across the landscape. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 85 shows that the condition and trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would be the 

same as alternative A. The condition of the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would remain fair, 

but the trend would be toward desired conditions in the short term, then trend slowly away from 

desired conditions in the long term because the treatment levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2) are not 

sufficient to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition and would continue to trend 

away from desired condition, as in alternative A. 

Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to alternative A, remaining in poor condition with a trend 

toward desired conditions in the short term under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres 

mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). However, in the short term under the high vegetation 

treatment objectives (260,050 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long 

term under both the low and high vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to 

fair and trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 85, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to moderate-high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining these species’ F Rank of F3 and F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate), PP (moderate in short term 

and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to 

moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 2 for all the habitats 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

539

associated with these species. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this rating is because these 

alternatives clearly distinguish between different Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides 

desired conditions, objectives, and guidance that are specific to the each type. 

Management direction would promote properly functioning ecosystems that are resilient to 

natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic disturbances and reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic disturbances; and promote balance between desirable non-native species 

and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, furthering sustainability and 

adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide 

for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and 

distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5 to 9; FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1, 

2, 3, 5). Management Area direction in the Verde Valley would maintain or improve habitat for 

these species by requiring projects to maintain or improve watershed function and to prevent the 

introduction of invasive or undesirable species (MA-VerdeV-DC-3). About 62 percent of Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub is in this management area.

Tree density and canopy cover are likely to increase in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub. The 

increases would have the negative effect of shading understory species and maintaining a greater 

number of small to medium sized trees than desired. Furthermore, these same changes increase 

the potential for a greater proportion of the ERU to burn at the high end of the range for 

mixed-severity fires. Shading understory species could result in reduced abundance of vegetative 

ground cover and accelerated erosion. Collectively, these changes could degrade habitat for 

Flagstaff beardtongue and western mousetail over the long term. However, there is an objective to 

use naturally ignited wildfires (i.e., lightning-caused fires that are managed for resource 

objectives) to treat at least 3,750 acres in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub within the natural fire 

regime during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-3). This would be 

beneficial for Flagstaff beardtongue and western mousetail in the areas where burning creates 

canopy gaps and reduces tree density by allowing sunlight and precipitation to increase the vigor 

and abundance of understory. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not restrict the use of wildfires managed for 

resource objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Fire and vegetation management in the 

wildland-urban interface would favor low intensity surface fires; higher frequency of disturbance 

than the natural disturbance regime from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource 

objectives, and/or vegetative treatments; more area of grass/forb/shrub vegetation or early seral 

vegetation, more open conditions, and lower tree densities than non-wildland-urban interface 

areas. Wildland-urban interface areas would still be within the range of desired conditions (FWWUI-DC-3, 4, 6, 7, and G-1). Although intended to reduce the risk of wildfire to surrounding 

communities and values-at-risk, conditions and activities in the wildland-urban interface could 

have the positive effect of maintaining habitat for these three species by stimulating flowering, 

seed release, germination, removing competitors, or causing a temporary increase in nutrient 

availability (Satterthwaite et al. 2002). Areas with increased disturbance from management 

activities could degrade habitat through accelerated soil erosion, soil compaction, depletion of the 

seedbank in the soil, and establishment of non-native species could out-compete with these 

species (Cione et al. 2002). Plants could respond negatively or positively to more frequent fire 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

540

depending on timing (when flowering, forming seed, actively growing, or when carbohydrate 

reserves are relatively low), frequency, severity, duration, and extent of burning and how these 

factors interface with plant morphology or other existing conditions like drought or ungulate 

grazing (DeBano et al. 1998). Furthermore, more frequent low-severity ground fires are not the 

natural fire regime for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, so composition and structure of Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub in the wildland-urban interface could shift (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-8). The 

effect of these altered conditions in the wildland-urban interface on these species is dependent on 

the site-specific and species-specific interaction of the above-mentioned possible effects and 

conditions. 

There are 723 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in the Davey’s recommended wilderness. 

This recommended wilderness would be managed to maintain or enhance primitive and 

undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and unique features; to reduce evidence of 

modern human control and manipulations; and motor vehicle uses should only occur for limited 

administrative and permitted activities to be consistent with wilderness character (FW- RWildDC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This would protect Flagstaff beardtongue and western mousetail 

habitat by reducing some ground disturbance that could occur as result of management activities 

or permitted uses. Recommended wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires 

but could make them more challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire 

should be consistent with wilderness character and depending on site-specific conditions, this 

may not always be possible. Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or 

prohibited (vehicle use) if recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation could 

restrict the use of vegetative treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU. The 

magnitude of the effect on Flagstaff beardtongue and western mousetail habitat depends on what 

needs to be restored in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in this recommended wilderness area, 

what tools might be needed for restoration, and whether access in the areas adjacent to the 

recommended wilderness area is sufficient to allow for safe use of prescribed or managed fire if 

needed.

For Ponderosa Pine, this rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological 

conditions and composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast 

to alternative A (Reynolds et al. 2013). Particularly beneficial guidelines provide sideboards that 

would promote or sustain old-growth forest attributes, uneven-aged conditions, pre-settlement 

trees, occupancy of small wildlife species, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle 

outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1 to 7). Although alternative B (modified) promotes an open 

uneven-aged structure similar to historic conditions, it also has provisions for denser areas such as 

on steep slopes and in canyons and larger tree groups in areas managed for bald eagles (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-8, 13). The treatment objectives for the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the need 

for ecological restoration that addresses the shift in canopy conditions away from desired 

conditions and the departure the historic fire regime. Implementation of these objectives and 

removal of restrictions on use of wildfires with resource objectives would lead to more open 

stand conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of 

habitat loss for species such as Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, and western 

mousetail. 

Rarity is a risk for Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, western mousetail, and Yavapai 

wild buckwheat. Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity better than 

alternative A. Forestwide guidance in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides desired conditions for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

541

properly functioning ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that support native plants 

and animals (FW-WFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components for sensitive and/or 

endemic species to carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G-10). These 

components are complementary to the plan components in the sections for All Ecosystems and 

All Terrestrial Ecosystems and provide additional assurance for the viability of these species. 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the At-risk topic in the Wildlife and Plant 

Topics and Issues section.

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

by adding language so roads and recreational activities and locations are managed to move 

toward desired conditions for other resources; so unneeded roads are decommissioned; and so 

temporary roads are naturalized in a timely manner (FW-RdsFac-G-1, 6, 8 and FW-Rec-All-G-1). 

FW-RdsFac-DC-3 may lead to temporary increases in roads to allow for management activities 

including restoration treatments and prescribed burning. These temporary roads could crush 

plants, degrade habitat, contribute to soil loss, or increase the risk of non-native plant 

establishment. However, these activities are needed to conduct vegetative treatments that would

reduce departure from desired conditions in ERUs and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

These treatments would generally open tree canopy and would improve the distribution and 

abundance of herbaceous understory, including habitat for rare plants. Additional information and 

analysis is discussed under the Disturbance (plants) topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and 

Issues section.

Alternative C

The effects to these species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except in addition to the 47,893 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in designated 

wilderness, there are 50,164 acres distributed in nine recommended wildernesses: Black 

Mountain (5,552 acres), Cedar Bench (2,558 acres), Cimarron-Boulder (9,496 acres), Davey’s 

(723 acres), Deadwood Draw (9,804 acres), Hackberry (15,890 acres), Railroad Draw (8 acres), 

Tin Can (2,652 acres), and Walker Mountain (3,480 acres). 

In addition to the 4,184 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass in designated wilderness, there are 

3,618 acres distributed in Strawberry Crater recommended wilderness area. 

In addition to the 31,087 acres of Ponderosa Pine in designated wilderness, there are 4,462 acres 

distributed in seven recommended wildernesses: Abineau (68 acres), Barbershop (849 acres), 

Deadwood Draw (245 acres), East Clear Creek (1,240 acres), Railroad Draw (1,205 acres), 

Strawberry Crater (29 acres), and Tin Can (826 acres). 

Recommended wilderness would protect habitat for Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild 

buckwheat, Yavapai wild buckwheat, and western mousetail by reducing some ground 

disturbance that could occur as result of management activities or permitted uses. Recommended 

wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires, but could make them more 

challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire should be consistent with 

wilderness character and, depending on site-specific conditions, this may not always be possible. 

Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or prohibited (vehicle use) if 

recommended wildernesses become designated. If all proposed wildernesses are designated, 

nearly 40 percent of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU, nearly 3 percent of Pinyon Juniper 

with Grass, and nearly 4 percent of Ponderosa Pine would be in wilderness areas. Designation 

could restrict the use of vegetative treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

542

The magnitude and extent of the effect on habitat is variable and depends on what and how much 

needs to be restored in the recommended wilderness areas, what tools might be needed for 

restoration, accessibility in the recommended wilderness areas, whether access in the areas 

adjacent to the recommended wilderness area is sufficient to allow for safe use of prescribed or 

managed fire if needed, and other site-specific factors. Some areas may be left untreated and may 

have a greater risk of experiencing uncharacteristic wildfires with higher than desired fire severity 

and a decreased likelihood of attaining the desired condition. This would potentially have the 

greatest impact on Flagstaff beardtongue and western mousetail because nearly 40 percent of its 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub habitat could be in designated wilderness or a combination of 

recommended and designated wilderness.

Alternative D

The effects to these species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except there is no recommended wilderness. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Flagstaff beardtongue, Jones’ wild buckwheat, western mousetail and Yavapai 

wild buckwheat, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. 

Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for Flagstaff 

beardtongue, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

better provide for the viability of these species than alternative A, primarily because of updated 

plan components for Pinyon Juniper vegetation types and Ponderosa Pine, for rare and at-risk 

species, and for ground-disturbing activities. The components acknowledge the roles of 

composition, structure, and function and natural disturbances, and promote resiliency to natural 

and human-caused disturbances. 

Ponderosa Pine Plants

Creeping milkvetch, Hairy clematis, Flagstaff cinquefoil, James rubberweed

These species are grouped together because most of their occurrences are in the Ponderosa Pine 

ERU. Several occur in other ERUs as well, but not as frequently. All ERUs are more fully 

evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Rarity and disturbance are more fully evaluated in 

the At-risk Species and Disturbance to Plants topics in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics 

section.

All of these species are classified as Other forest planning species except hairy clematis is a 

Southwestern Region Forest Service sensitive species.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Creeping milkvetch is endemic and classified as an Other planning species. It is known from 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona and is found around Flagstaff and the adjacent 

Mogollon Rim (Springer et al. 2009). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

543

The distribution for hairy clematis, a Southwestern Region sensitive species, includes much of the 

western United States, but it is rare within the planning unit.

Flagstaff cinquefoil, classified as an Other planning species, is known only from south and east of 

Flagstaff, Arizona. Flagstaff cinquefoil grows along roadways and on private land near Mountain 

Dell and University Heights. It is also known from locations on the forest including near the top 

of Pumphouse Wash, Bar M Canyon, and Sandy’s Canyon trailhead. 

James rubberweed, classified as an Other planning species, is endemic to northern Arizona. 

Habitat

Creeping milkvetch is typically associated with the Ponderosa Pine ERU on dry slopes and flats.

Many of the known locations of hairy clematis are in the same general area as Flagstaff 

pennyroyal; near the Lake Mary area. It generally shares the same affinity for limestone soils, but 

is not as tightly tied to a specific soil type as Flagstaff pennyroyal. A few groups have been found 

on basalt soils in the Fort Valley area and near Woods Canyon. Extremely heavy shade reduces 

growth and reproduction, while full sun can dry seeds and plants (Maschinski and Phillips 1993). 

Flagstaff cinquefoil occurs in Ponderosa Pine ERU.

James rubberweed primarily occurs in forests dominated by Ponderosa Pine ERU. 

Risk Factors

All of these species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. 

They are vulnerable to perturbations in the environments such as ground-disturbing activities 

because of their small population sizes. Disturbance to plants is also a risk from management 

activities, such as vegetation treatments, fire, and road work. 

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At Risk Species 

and Disturbance to Plants. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about Ponderosa Pine. 

Table 86 summarizes the viability analyses for these ponderosa pine plant species. The table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

each species is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

544

Table 86. Analysis summary for ponderosa pine plant species

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status Habitat

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Flagstaff 

cinquefoil 

(Other) 

Hairy clematis 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1* 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair at 

long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H

James 

rubberweed 

(Other) 

F Rank = F2* 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M-H 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair at 

long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M-H 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Creeping 

milkvetch 

(Other, 

Endemic)

F Rank = F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair at 

long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: LM 

Management Effect PP = 3: Plan components maintain 

or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or improved 

by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

PP = 2: Plan components maintain or 

improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat, F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

All of these species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute 

to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

545

The distribution and diversity of understory vegetation are expected to increase where open 

stands are created, such as in areas treated for restoration. The shift to more open canopy under all 

alternatives would improve the abundance and vigor of understory vegetation. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that 

have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, projectspecific best management practices should be developed. Finally, specific project design features 

would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when 

disturbed. 

About 31,087 acres (4 percent) of Ponderosa pine are in designated wilderness. Plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional protection to these species so would contribute to its 

viability in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would 

support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management 

activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions 

for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness 

values from being compromised. Ground disturbance would be reduced in the habitats for these

species because motorized and mechanized use in wildernesses are not allowed (1987 Plan, pages 

105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 86 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition in the short term, then improve 

to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The improved 

vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the 

high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation 

quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because more acres 

would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the 

short and long term. 

As shown in table 86, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to high. These likelihoods were derived by combining these species’ F 

Ranks of F1, F2, and F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for the Ponderosa Pine 

ERU (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; lowmoderate for high treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Ponderosa Pine, 

which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

546

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as creeping 

milkvetch, hairy clematis, Flagstaff cinquefoil, and James rubberweed. Ponderosa pine is mostly 

managed for Mexican spotted owls or northern goshawks under forestwide direction. Areas 

managed for Mexican spotted owl PACs and nest/roost characteristics tend to have higher canopy 

closure than areas outside of these areas. Understory in these areas may be less abundant or 

vigorous due to the canopy closure. Mexican spotted owl habitat outside of PACs and areas 

outside of those managed for nest/roost characteristics could have better habitat for these species 

in areas where natural canopy gap processes occur and natural variation includes small openings. 

See 1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5. 

Ponderosa pine areas outside of Mexican spotted owl habitat are managed for northern goshawks. 

Plan direction for northern goshawks would maintain habitat for these species because ponderosa 

pine would be managed for a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory). In 

addition, 40 percent of the area (in young forest, seedling/sapling or grass/forb/shrub structure) 

would not have canopy cover guidelines; and there would be more openings than in areas 

managed for denser stand conditions. See 1987 Plan, pages 65-7, 65-9, and 65-10. Additional 

management direction for ponderosa pine is in Management Area 3 (Ponderosa Pine and Mixed 

Conifer less than 40 percent slope), and this direction has both positive and negative aspects.

Direction to broadcast seed following burns using a high production multi-growing season 

species to attain a balanced composition of cool and warm season forage species could have a 

negative effect on these species due to competition for nutrients and water with non-native 

species that could be a part of this seed mix. However, language to maintain open meadows in 

ponderosa pine, eliminate invading overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could improve 

habitat for these species. See 1987 Plan, page 120. 

For Ponderosa Pine ERU, this management effect rating is also because direction to broadcast 

seed following burns using a high production multi-growing season species to attain a balanced 

composition of cool and warm season forage species could have a negative effect on these species 

due to competition for nutrients and water with non-native species that could be a part of this seed 

mix. However, language to maintain open meadows in ponderosa pine, eliminate invading 

overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could improve habitat. See 1987 Plan, page 120. The 

Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 93, 94, 137. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in these ERUs, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, and 165) and the language to manage wildfires for resource 

objectives in wilderness impedes the use of this tool (1987 Plan, pages 111–112). This plan 

language does not contribute to the viability of these species because it would limit the restoration 

of fire as a natural process in the wildland-urban interface and in wilderness, and canopy cover 

and shrub and tree density would be expected to increase in these areas. There would also be 

increased potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban interface and wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

547

portions of this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the landownership pattern is 

intermixed between public and private ownerships. 

However, plan language for designated wilderness provides additional protection to these species 

and would contribute to species viability in all alternatives due to fewer ground-disturbing 

activities, which could damage plants, compact soil, or cause accelerated soil erosion. For 

example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a natural assemblage of 

native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities and permitted uses 

should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for wilderness and other 

resources; and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values from being 

compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 86 shows that the condition and trend for the Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to 

alternative A, remaining in poor condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term 

under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). 

However, in the short term under the high vegetation treatment objectives (260,050 acres 

mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long term under both the low and high 

vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to fair and trend toward desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 86, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for these 

species is low-moderate to high. These likelihoods were derived by combining these species’ F 

Ranks of F1,F2, and F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for the Ponderosa Pine 

ERU (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; lowmoderate for high treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2. This means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. This rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological conditions and 

composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast to alternative A 

(Reynolds et al. 2013). Particularly beneficial guidelines provide sideboards that would promote 

or sustain old-growth forest attributes, uneven-aged conditions, pre-settlement trees, occupancy 

of small wildlife species, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FWTerrERU-PP-G-1 to 7). Although alternative B (modified) promotes an open uneven-aged 

structure similar to historic conditions, it also has provisions for denser areas such as on steep 

slopes and in canyons and larger tree groups in areas managed for bald eagles (FW-TerrERU-PPDC-8, 13). The treatment objectives for the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the need for ecological 

restoration that addresses the shift in canopy conditions away from desired conditions and the 

departure the historic fire regime. Implementation of these objectives and removal of restrictions 

on use of wildfires with resource objectives would lead to more open stand conditions and reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of habitat loss for species 

such as creeping milkvetch, hairy clematis, Flagstaff cinquefoil, and James rubberweed.

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not restrict the use of wildfires managed for 

resource objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Fire and vegetation management in the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

548

wildland-urban interface would favor low intensity surface fires; higher frequency of disturbance 

than the natural disturbance regime from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource 

objectives, and/or vegetative treatments; more area of grass/forb/shrub vegetation or early seral 

vegetation, and more open conditions. Wildland-urban interface areas would still be within the 

range of desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 6, 7, and G-1). Although intended to reduce the 

risk of wildfire to surrounding communities and values-at-risk, conditions and activities in the 

wildland-urban interface could have the positive effect of maintaining habitat for these species by 

stimulating flowering, seed release, germination, removing competitors, or causing a temporary 

increase in nutrient availability (Satterthwaite et al. 2002). Areas with increased disturbance from 

management activities could degrade habitat through accelerated soil erosion, soil compaction, 

depletion of the seedbank in the soil, and establishment of non-native species could out-compete 

this species (Cione et al. 2002). Plants could respond negatively or positively to more frequent 

fire depending on timing (when flowering, forming seed, actively growing, or when carbohydrate 

reserves are relatively low), frequency, severity, duration, and extent of burning and how these 

factors interface with plant morphology or other existing conditions like drought (DeBano et al. 

1998). The effect of higher frequency of disturbance and more open conditions in the WUI may 

vary by species and would be dependent on the site-specific and species-specific interaction of 

the above mentioned possible effects and conditions. 

There are 97 acres (less than 1 percent) of ponderosa pine in recommended wilderness in this 

alternative. Recommended wilderness would be managed to maintain or enhance primitive and 

undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and unique features; to reduce evidence of 

modern human control and manipulations; and motor vehicle uses should only occur for limited 

administrative and permitted activities to be consistent with wilderness character (FW- RWildDC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This would protect habitat by reducing some ground disturbance 

that could occur as result of management activities or permitted uses. Recommended wilderness 

would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires but could make them more challenging to 

implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire should be consistent with wilderness 

character and depending on site-specific conditions, this may not always be possible. Active 

vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or prohibited (vehicle use) if 

recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation could restrict the use of vegetative 

treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU. The magnitude of the effect on 

species and their habitat depends on what needs to be restored in these ERUs in recommended 

wilderness, what tools might be needed for restoration, and whether access in the areas adjacent 

to recommended wilderness is sufficient to allow for safe use of prescribed or managed fire if 

needed.

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses species’ 

specific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution, 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) also promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and 

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

549

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

by adding language so roads and recreational activities and locations are managed to move 

toward desired conditions for other resources; so unneeded roads are decommissioned, and so 

temporary roads are naturalized in a timely manner (FW-RdsFac-G-1, 6, 8 and FW-Rec-All-G-1). 

A Roads and Facilities desired condition may lead to temporary increases in roads to allow for 

management activities including restoration treatments and prescribed burning (FW-RdsFac-DC3). These temporary roads could crush plants, degrade habitat, contribute to soil loss, or increase 

the risk of non-native plant establishment. However, these activities are needed to conduct 

vegetative treatments that would reduce departure from desired conditions in ERUs and reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire. These treatments would generally open tree canopy and would 

improve the distribution and abundance of herbaceous understory, including habitat for rare 

plants. 

Collection of Flagstaff cinquefoil was not identified as a threat for this species. However, it has 

been collected by local gardeners in the past, partly based on its uniqueness and beauty. This was 

occurring before Flagstaff cinquefoil was officially designated as a species. Guidance in Wildlife, 

Fish and Plants (FW-WFP-G-15) and Forest Products (FW-FProd-G- 4) could be used to regulate 

collection of Flagstaff cinquefoil on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction. Collections on nonforest lands would not be affected by this guidance. This heightens the importance of 

conservation of this species on NFS lands, which may provide refugia for Flagstaff cinquefoil as 

locations on other lands are lost or depleted (FW-WFP-DC-5 and FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative C

The effects to these species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified), 

except there are 1,720 acres (less than 1 percent) of Ponderosa Pine in recommended wilderness 

in this alternative. 

Alternative D

The effects to these species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified), 

except there is no recommended wilderness. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of creeping milkvetch, hairy clematis, Flagstaff cinquefoil, and James 

rubberweed, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. 

Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for hairy 

clematis, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better 

provide for the viability of these species than alternative A. These alternatives included plan 

components for the Ponderosa Pine ERU that provide better protection for this habitat and 

updated plan language for at-risk and rare species and disturbances. 

Off-forest Aquatic Species

Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly

These species are grouped together because they share similar habitats. These habitats (e.g., 

springs, perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

550

Riparian Forest) are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. These species’ 

habitats and habitat management are covered under a Conservation Agreement by the State of 

Arizona. 

Affected Environment 

The Page springsnail and Balmorhea saddle-case caddisfly are both Forest Service sensitive 

species. They are endemic perennial species found on Arizona State lands and private lands of 

Page Springs hatchery and Lolo Mai springs within the lower Oak Creek watershed. 

Distribution

Page springsnails are not currently present on Coconino NF lands, but exist only on privately 

owned springs within the Oak Creek 5th HUC watershed (Lower Oak Creek 6th HUC, less than 

one perennial mile of habitat). 

Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly occurs in Arizona and Texas, and it has only been found in 

Page Springs and Bubbling Ponds which are parcels of private land within the forest boundaries 

(Stevens and Ledbetter 2014). This habitat is in the Oak Creek 5th HUC watershed. 

Habitat

Page springsnails are associated with springs, perennial streams, and Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest off the forest. They eat the periphyton attached to algae and aquatic macrophytes 

and are found attached to firm substrates such as rocks, vegetation, floating algal mats and 

submerged woody debris in association with slow to moderate flows of springs near 

gravel/cobble substrates (AZGFD 2015). 

Balmorhea saddle-case caddisfly are associated with springs, Cottonwood Willow Riparian 

Forest, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest off the forest. The larvae are thought to 

prefer slow-lotic, warmer water habitats with sandy substrate and spring-fed channels. 

Microhabitat preferences of this species are not well known (Stevens and Ledbetter 2014).

Risks

Rarity is a threat to both Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly, because they are 

only known from a few locations. Page springsnail is endemic to the Page Springs and bubbling 

ponds habitats; while the Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly is restricted to these two springs as 

well (Stevens and Ledbetter 2014). 

Environmental Consequences

Table 87 summarizes the viability analyses for the Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case 

caddisfly. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the Species 

Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition 

and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management 

effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan 

language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan 

decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The 

lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

551

Table 87. Analysis summary for Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species, status, 

and F Rank

Habitat Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Condition and 

habitat trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Page springsnail 

(Sensitive) 

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

N/A Fair**, slowly 

toward

N/A

F Rank = FO* Perennial 

streams

Poor, static N/A Poor, toward N/A

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

N/A Good, slowly 

toward 

N/A

Balmorhea Saddlecase caddisfly

(Sensitive)

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

N/A Fair**, slowly 

toward

N/A

F Rank = FO* CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

N/A Good, slowly 

toward 

N/A

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

N/A Good, slowly 

toward 

N/A

Management Effect Springs and perennial streams = 

4: Decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or

may be few.

Ephemeral streams, CWRF, 

MBDRF = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area. 

*FO = Occurs off the forest.

**For analysis, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or good condition 

depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Both of these species are considered to be rare because there are few populations, none of which 

occur on the forest. Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by 

managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 

180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-

72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFPDC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues 

and Topics section above for more information. 

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would use either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

552

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions, 

habitat for aquatic and riparian species, and connected downstream resources. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 23, 71, 72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1, 

and FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4, and FW-BioPhys-GeoG-8. 

Alternative A

Table 87 shows that under alternative A, springs would remain in fair condition and slowly 

toward desired conditions. Accessible, unprotected springs would remain in poor condition, while 

springs that are inaccessible, protected, or undeveloped would remain in good condition. 

Perennial streams would remain in poor condition with a static trend in relation to desired 

conditions. This condition is generally due to most streams having invasive and non-native 

animal species that are outside of their historic variability. 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. Both of these riparian forest types 

would mostly have a static trend or slowly trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood 

Willow, some portions would be static due to high recreation or private land. In Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous, static trends are associated with the Oak Creek 5th code HUC. Trends that are slowly 

toward desired conditions are associated with the Beaver Creek and the Fossil Creek-Lower

Verde River 5th code HUCs except portions of Fossil Creek have a trend away from desired 

conditions where recreation use is high, but these are not habitat for these species. 

As shown in table 87, no likelihood has been determined that these species would be limited by 

their habitat on the forest because these species are not known to occur on the forest and have an 

F Rank of FO. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs and 

perennial streams, which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or 

lack of management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be 

few. For springs, desired conditions and guidelines are largely lacking therefore managers do not 

have clear direction when restoring or protecting springs or to maintain or restore toward desired 

condition of properly functioning, resilient springs and spring riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). For perennial streams, language is largely lacking for invasive and non-native 

aquatic species that were not present historically. These species can alter the composition, 

structure and processes of stream ecosystems. As described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section, 

the threat of dispersed recreation to riparian resources is not addressed forestwide in alternative 

A. The Sedona-Oak Creek Planning Area most specifically address the conflicts and strategies to 

resolve resource damage in riparian areas. This direction mainly addresses the impact of 

dispersed recreation to specific riparian areas where there have been past conflicts and resource 

damage. However, it provides very limited direction when areas that previously received low use 

are “discovered” and see unexpected increases in recreation, such as Fossil Creek. As a result, 

alternative A addresses this threat sporadically compared with alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D, but it does mitigate some of the areas where the conflict is most pronounced. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

553

The management effect is classified as a 3 for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, which means that plan components in alternative A 

maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area 

and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily 

because alternative A lacks or has few plan components relative to composition, structure, and 

function of riparian forests. This alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian 

condition compared to the other alternatives because desired conditions are lacking and there is 

not a focus on functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 

2016b). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 87 shows that under alternative B (modified) springs would remain in fair condition with 

slow trend toward desired conditions, like alternative A. Perennial streams would remain in poor 

condition but the trend would be toward desired conditions because of updated plan components 

(see management effect below). 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would improve to good condition and trend slowly toward 

desired conditions.

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and would slowly 

move toward desired conditions. It would improve faster than alternative A in the Oak Creek 5th 

code HUC.

As shown in table 87, no likelihood has been determined that these species would be limited by 

their habitat on the forest because these species are not known to occur on the forest and have an 

F Rank of FO. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 

filter habitats associated with these aquatic and riparian species. This means that plan components 

in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For springs, this rating is because alternative B (modified) has desired conditions and guidelines 

to guide spring management on the forest (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, 2, 3, 4 and FW-Rip-Spr-G-1, 2, 3, 

4) whereas these are absent in alternative A. 

For perennial streams, this rating is based on language regarding mitigating the effects of roads 

and promoting connectivity within drainages and between streamcourses and upland habitats, 

(See FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 7 and 9 and the Connectivity topic in the Wildlife and Plants Topics and 

Issues section). Although there are three recommended wildernesses, only the Davey’s 

recommended wilderness area connects to perennial water, Fossil Creek. Guidelines for 

recommended wilderness would lessen the effects of roads by restricting motorized use except for 

limited permitted and administrative use and promoting trails for mechanized and non-motorized 

use (SA-RWild-G-3, 5). This is beneficial for connected waters and habitat for these species 

because roads can alter natural water flow patterns and natural sediment levels. 

More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water 

quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2). Also, alternative B (modified) has a guideline that 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

554

balances recreation activities, permitted uses, and management activities with soil function, 

riparian vegetation, and water quality at the stream reach scale (FW-Rip-RipType-G-3). This 

guideline would not apply to fine scale activities and facilities such as intermittent livestock 

crossing locations, water gaps, or other infrastructure used to manage impacts to riparian areas at 

a larger scale. This guideline is intended to protect riparian function, especially in areas of high 

recreation use such as Oak Creek.

Alternative B (modified) has desired conditions that protect riparian resources, including soil 

conditions and water quality, while recognizing the demand for and need to properly manage the 

public’s dispersed recreation opportunities. A forestwide desired condition for dispersed 

recreation supports managing dispersed recreation to avoid resource damage (FW-Rec-Disp-DC3) Several guidelines about dispersed recreation would manage trails, camping, and recreation 

types to prevent further resource damage to riparian resources (FW-Rec-Disp-G-1 to 5). 

Plan components in alternative B (modified) specify that livestock grazing maintains desired 

conditions of plant communities (FW-Graz-DC-2; FW-Graz-G-2). They also protect and 

minimize impacts to riparian areas by recommending that livestock use be restricted to the 

dormant season, recommending utilization levels on woody vegetation, maintenance of adequate 

vegetative cover to protect streambanks, and state that riparian areas are rarely negatively 

impacted by livestock (FW-Graz-G-7). This would maintain riparian structure, composition, and 

promote proper functioning. Guidelines are in place to reduce cattle concentrations and 

sedimentation into connected waters by specifying that range improvements should not interfere 

with riparian function and rare species, and further specifies a minimum distance of salts and 

supplements from riparian areas (FW-Graz-G-4 and 5). 

Alternative B (modified) addresses uncharacteristic flooding by maintaining natural hydrographs 

through time and by promoting riparian forest composition and structure that would reduce the 

effects of flooding (FW-Rip-Strm-DC-4, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-2). For stream riparian areas, 

functional riparian areas and herbaceous vegetation provide protection from uncharacteristic 

wildfire and flooding disturbance, resiliency, and should filter sediment and protect water quality 

(FW-RIP-RipType-DC-2, 3, 4). This alternative also contains a guideline protects riparian 

resources by recommending against issuing a lands and recreation special use permit for activities 

proposed to occur within 200 feet of perennial streams, springs, or waters that contribute to or 

support sensitive resources, such as federally listed or Southwestern Region sensitive species 

(FW-SpecUse-G-3). 

For Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, this 

management effect rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines 

that support the composition, structure, and function of riparian forest types (FW-Rip-RipTypeDC-1 to 6, FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional condition would improve 

faster than alternative A. Plan components manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function 

(FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). Plan components in the 

Wildlife, Fish and Plants section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian 

areas by promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and 

biological components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) specifically supports conditions for endemic, rare, 

or specialized species in springs. Alternative B (modified) also has language that better addresses 

species specific threats: i.e. rarity and invasive or non-native animals. Plan language in alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

555

B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would provide microsites and refugia for species 

with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would provide the resiliency and redundancy 

necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and 

management activities should be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life 

cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly 

endemic species and species with restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FWWFP-G-10). 

Alternative B (modified) better addresses the threat of invasive species and disease than 

alternative A by supporting native species and addressing disease and invasive, non-native species 

forestwide (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-Eco-DC-1, FW-Water-DC-6 and G-6, FW-Rip-Strm-G-1, FWRip-Spr-DC-2, FW-Rip-RipType-DC2, 6, and G-2, and FW-TerrERU-All-G-3). The plan 

components for invasive species can be applied to any non-native plant or animal on the forest. 

The forestwide desired conditions for invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1 and 2) and guidelines 

(FW-Invas-G-1 through 3) apply to all organisms. Unlike alternative A, invasive species guidance 

is incorporated in many portions of this alternative. Desired condition (FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9) states 

that non-native invasive plants and invasive aquatic organisms are not established or transported 

around these high-use areas of the forest, which is particularly beneficial for several of these 

species because they are adjacent to developed campgrounds. FW-Rec-Dev-G-2 provides 

guidance for controlling invasive species at these sites before they become established and 

widespread.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

All of the habitat for the Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly lies within State 

of Arizona or private lands. Considering indirect and cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and 

plants to these habitats such as waterway development (that is outside of Forest control) and the 

analyses under the Coarse Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all 

alternatives would provide for the viability of Page springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case 

caddisfly, although individuals may be impacted by management activities or permitted uses. 

Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for Page 

springsnail and Balmorhea Saddle-case caddisfly, which are Forest Service sensitive species.

Riparian Plants

Alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose 

These three species are addressed together because they share similar habitat and threats. All 

three species are Southwestern Region sensitive species.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

556

Affected Environment 

These three species are addressed together because they share similar habitat. They occur in the 

Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness, the Oak Creek Research Natural Area, and West Fork of 

Oak Creek. Their ranges are slightly different.

Alcove bog orchid is uncommon throughout its range and endemic to the Colorado Plateau. It 

was added to the Region 3 sensitive species list in 2007. 

Arizona bugbane was proposed for listing as threatened species in 1979 and again in 1982 and 

has been previously managed using a Conservation Strategy (1995). The strategy has currently 

lapsed but is under revision. 

Ertter’s rose is a recently recognized variety of the more common woods rose.

Distribution

Alcove bog orchid is endemic to the Colorado and Green rivers and their tributaries in eastern 

Utah, northwestern Colorado, and northern Arizona. Known occurrences of this species on the 

forest include the West Fork of Oak Creek. 

Arizona bugbane occurs only in northern and central Arizona. All known locations are on NFS

lands on Coconino, Kaibab and Tonto National Forests. Locations of this species include the 

tributaries of Oak Creek, including West Fork, Pumphouse and James Canyons and the West 

Clear Creek drainage. Most, but not all, of the documented occurrences of Arizona bugbane on 

the Coconino NF are in wildernesses. 

Ertter’s rose is narrowly endemic with distribution limited to the West Fork of Oak Creek and the 

adjacent main portion of Oak Creek Canyon and perhaps nearby canyons. 

Habitat

Alcove bog orchid habitat includes seeps, hanging gardens, and stream edges in desert shrub 

communities. Typical sites are shaded for most of the day. It is associated with Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest and springs. 

Arizona bugbane is a perennial plant that grows along canyon bottoms and lower canyon slopes 

in association with Douglas-fir, white fir, big tooth maple, Rocky Mountain maple, and 

sometimes aspen. Some populations occur at seeps and springs, in drainages and on shaded north 

slopes, growing in moist, loamy soil of the ecotone between the coniferous forest and riparian 

habitat. It is associated with Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian and Montane Willow Riparian 

Forests.

Ertter’s rose grows on well-drained slopes and in riparian forests and creek beds at elevations of 

5,300 feet in the mouth of West Fork of Oak Creek to 7,000 feet at the rim. It is associated with 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian and Montane Willow Riparian Forest. 

Risk Factors

Threats to all three species are disturbance to plants and rarity. Some of the documented locations 

are in the “mouth of West Fork,” which is heavily used by recreationists, while others are in most 

remote locations of the West Fork drainage and are in the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness 

and the Oak Creek Research Natural Area. In addition, the West Fork of Oak Creek and segments 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

557

of West Clear Creek have been identified as potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. In accessible locations, recreation use could trample plants and 

habitat, compact soil or cause accelerated erosion.

Environmental Consequences

Table 88 summarizes the viability analyses for alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane and Ertter’s 

rose. This table was developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability 

section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, 

likelihood that these species are limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by 

alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, 

including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the 

management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is 

for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

558

Table 88. Analysis summary for alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat condition 

and trend relative to 

desired conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Alcove bog 

orchid

(Sensitive)

F Rank =F2*

MBDRF Oak Creek 5th code 

HUC is Fair to Good, 

static to slowly toward

H to M-H Oak Creek 5th

code HUC is

Good, slowly 

toward

M-H

Springs Fair**, slowly toward H Fair**, slowly 

toward

H

Arizona 

bugbane 

(Sensitive)

Canyons in 

MBDRF

Oak Creek 5th code 

HUC is Fair to Good, 

static to slowly toward

H to M-H Oak Creek 5th

code HUC is

Good, toward

M-H

F Rank = F2* Canyons in 

MWRF

Good, static to slowly 

toward

M-H Good, slowly 

toward

M-H 

Ertter’s rose 

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = F1*

MBDRF Oak Creek 5th code 

HUC is Fair to Good, 

static to slowly toward

VH to H Oak Creek 5th

code HUC is

Good, toward

H

MWRF Good, static to slowly 

toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

H

Management Effect MBDRF, MWRF = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat or 

habitat elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. Springs = 4: 

Decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or 

may be few. 

All = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat. F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat.

**For analysis, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or good condition 

depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

559

The known occurrences of alcove bog orchid and Ertter’s rose on the forest are in the Red RockSecret Mountain Wilderness. Arizona bugbane occurs in the West Clear Creek and Red RockSecret Mountain Wildernesses. Plan language for designated wilderness would contribute to the 

viability of these species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning 

properly and would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness 

area; management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward

desired conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to 

prevent wilderness values from being compromised (pages 105, 108-1 through 108-4and SAWild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Some locations of alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose are within the Oak 

Creek Research Natural Area. Plan components preserving the natural conditions of the research 

natural area (Pages 25 and 194, SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1 through 4), and would thus, preserve the 

habitat and contribute to the viability of these three species. 

Some locations of alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose are within the segment 

of West Fork of Oak Creek and the segments of West Clear Creek (bugbane only) that are eligible 

for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These species and their habitat 

would benefit from plan language that would manage recreation and other activities along eligible 

rivers and their corridors to protect and enhance the free-flowing condition and outstandingly 

remarkable values consistent with the classification (SA-WSR-DC-1 and 3, G-1). Alternative A 

lacks guidance for rivers determined to be eligible for designation as a wild and scenic river but 

policy directs that rivers found to be eligible and suitable must be protected as far as possible to 

the same extent as a designated study river (FSM 2354.21).

Recreational uses such as hiking and camping in West Fork pose a localized threat to individuals 

of these species. All alternatives would prohibit overnight camping in the research natural area 

(Page 108-3, SA-RNABotGeo-S -1). All alternatives provide for managing trails in the West Fork 

area (Page 108-2, and FW-Rec-Trails-DC -4 and 11). The direction in alternative A is specific to 

West Fork and provided the impetus for consolidating multiple user created trails into one 

maintained trail in the area. The forestwide desired conditions in alternative B (modified) provide 

for managing user damage to trails and keeping users on maintained trails while reducing the 

proliferation of social trails. All of these mitigate the potential effects of recreation to alcove bog 

orchid. 

Alternative A

Table 88 shows that under alternative A, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would be in 

fair to good condition and Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. 

Both of these riparian forest types would mostly have a static trend or slowly trend toward desired 

conditions. In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, static trends are associated with the 

Oak Creek 5th code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. In general, spring would be in fair 

condition and slowly trend toward desired condition. Springs along West Fork are in good 

condition with a static trend. 

As shown in table 88, the likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on the 

forest is moderate-high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Ranks with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 

habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous (moderate), Montane Willow (moderate), and springs (high) 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

560

(table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 88 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian Forest, which means that 

plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the 

other alternatives. The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs because there would be a 

decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Alternative A does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian areas nor 

does it distinguish between the riparian forest types. It lacks plan components relative to 

composition, structure, and function. In addition, this alternative has the least potential for 

improvement to riparian condition compared to the other alternatives. Guidance for springs in 

alternative A is included in the Riparian section of the plan (MA 12 Riparian and Open Water) 

with no direction to maintain springs in their natural conditions. 

Alternative B (modified)

Rarity is a risk for these species. Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity 

better than alternative A. This is due to more forestwide guidance to address rare habitats and 

species. This is discussed in the At-risk section under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics.

Table 88 shows that under alternative B (modified), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

would remain in good condition and would move toward desired conditions. Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and would slowly move toward desired 

conditions. Springs would be in fair condition in general and slowly trend toward desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 88 the likelihood that these species would be limited by their habitat on the 

forest is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Ranks of F2 and F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous (moderate), Montane Willow (moderate), and 

springs (high) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats.

This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian Forest, this rating 

is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that distinguish between 

the riparian forest types and that support their respective composition, structure, and function 

(FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional 

condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for vegetation 

diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 and 2; 

FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines 

protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

561

Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also contribute to the 

viability of species associated with riparian areas by promoting properly functioning ecosystems 

that have the necessary physical and biological components to meet the needs of associated native 

species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

Forestwide desired conditions for springs (FW-Rip-Spr-DC 5) provide particularly beneficial 

guidance to preserve the physical and biological components of springs that provide habitat for 

narrowly endemic species and those with restricted distributions such as alcove bog orchid. 

Forest-wide guidance for biophysical features would protect the physical and geological 

properties of cliffs and the plants and animals that depend on them (FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-1, FWBioPhy-Geo-DC 6). Desired conditions in Wildlife, Fish and Plants also refer to the unique 

habitat provided by cliffs. FW-WFP –DC-5 provides direction for preserving the composition, 

structure and function of the ERUs and the physical features including cliffs and rock piles that 

provide habitat and refugia for the plants and animals that depend on them. 

There is no habitat for this species in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative, 

and therefore, no impact.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified). There is no habitat for this species 

in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative and therefore no impact. 

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives will provide for

the viability of the alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose, although individuals 

may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would 

lead to a trend toward Federal listing for alcove bog orchid, Arizona bugbane, and Ertter’s rose, 

which are Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for 

the viability of these species than alternative A, primarily because they contain plan components 

for riparian forests and springs and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. 

Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock, and Cochise sedge

These three species are addressed together because they mostly share similar habitat and threats.

All three species are Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Bebb’s willow as a species is widespread and not considered especially rare. It is of special 

interest for the Coconino NF because it represents the southernmost example of a Bebb’s willow 

dominated riparian forest community. Similar communities are hundreds of miles to the north. 

The Bebb’s willow riparian community is in the Fern Mountain Botanical Area which was 

established with the approval of the current plan (alternative A) and adjacent Hart Prairie Preserve 

which is managed by the Nature Conservancy. The estimated population in this area is 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

562

approximately 1,300 plants. Conservation of Bebb’s willow is the focus of the Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area. Locations elsewhere on the forests are comprised of single plants or small groups, 

not the unique riparian scrub community at Hart Prairie. Bebb’s willow has been documented in 

the Hart Prairie area, Kehl Springs, Merritt Draw, Mormon Lake Area, Upper West Fork and 

Fernow Draw on the Coconino NF. 

Blumer’s dock is a large, long-lived herbaceous perennial plant occurring in New Mexico and 

Arizona. Known locations include the Hart Prairie area, Barbershop Canyon, and East Clear 

Creek.

Cochise sedge is endemic to southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Cochise sedge 

has been reported from Fossil Creek and the West Clear Creek areas on the Coconino NF. Many 

actions such as regulating the number of visitors, controlling parking and public sanitation have 

already been initiated in Fossil Creek. Although these actions are not incorporated into the current 

plan (alternative A), these analyses were conducted under the guidance of the current plan. 

Habitat

Bebb’s willow and Blumer’s dock are associated with Montane Willow Riparian Forest and 

springs. The habitat for Blumer’s dock is mid- to high-elevation wetlands with moist, organic soil 

adjacent to perennial springs or streams in canyons or meadows. Cochise sedge is associated with 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, Montane Willow Riparian Forest, and springs. It 

generally occurs in shady areas and in moist soils. The springs where Cochise sedge is present are 

in remote areas so are considered inaccessible consequently the likelihood that springs would be 

limiting to this species is low. 

Risk Factors

Threats to all three species are disturbance to plants and rarity. Water diversion is an additional 

threat to Bebb’s willow and Blumer’s dock. Herbivory is an additional threat to Bebb’s willow. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 89 summarizes the viability analyses for Bebb's willow, Blumer’s dock, and Cochise sedge. 

This table was developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section 

above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, 

likelihood that these species are limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by 

alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, 

including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the 

management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is 

for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

563

Table 89. Analysis summary for Bebb's willow, Blumer’s dock, and Cochise sedge 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Bebb’s willow and 

Blumer’s dock 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

H

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1*

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

VH Fair**, slowly 

toward

VH 

Cochise sedge 

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = F1*

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward;

West Clear Creek 

5th code HUC is 

Good and static; 

portions of Fossil 

Creek where 

recreation 

impacts occur are 

trending away.

H Good, slowly

toward; West 

Clear Creek 5th

code HUC is 

Good and slowly 

toward; and 

Fossil Creek 5th

code HUC is 

Good, toward. 

H 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

H

Springs Good**, toward H Good**, toward H

Management Effect MBDRF, MWRF= 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat or 

habitat elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

Springs =4: Decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management 

or lack of management that result 

from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or may 

be few.

All = 2: Plan components maintain 

or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat

**For analysis, springs were considered in fair condition for Bebb’s will and Blumer’s dock. However, some springs could 

be in poor or good condition depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development. Cochise sedge occurs in 

inaccessible areas, so the springs were considered to be in good condition for that analysis.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

564

Particularly beneficial plan language for Bebb’s willow follows. Most of the known Bebb’s 

willow plants on the forest are within the Fern Mountain Botanical Area, which is managed as a 

special area in all alternatives (pages 82, 193-196; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5, SA-RNABotGeo-DC6, SA-RNABotGeo-G-1, SA-RNABotGeo-G-3). The plan direction for all alternatives is 

protective and similar, but more flexible in alternatives B (modified), C and D. 

Some populations of Cochise sedge occurs in the Fossil Creek and West Clear Creek 

Wildernesses. Plan language for designated wilderness would contribute to the viability of this 

species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would 

support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management 

activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions 

for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness 

values from being compromised (pages 105, 108-1 through 108-4and SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SAWild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 89 shows that under alternative A, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. These riparian forest types 

would mostly have a static trend, slow trend, or trend toward desired conditions. In Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, static trends are associated West Clear Creek 5th code 

HUCs. Trends that are slowly toward desired conditions are associated with the Fossil CreekLower Verde River 5th code HUCs except portions of Fossil Creek have a trend away from 

desired conditions where recreation use is high. Trends in Montane Willow Riparian Forest would 

be static to slowly toward desired conditions. In general, springs would be in fair condition and

slowly trend toward desired condition. 

As shown in table 89, the likelihood that the Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock and Cochise sedge 

would be limited by its habitat on the forest is high to very high and varies slightly by habitat. 

These likelihoods were derived by combining the F Ranks of F1 for each of these species with the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

(moderate), Montane Willow (moderate), and springs (high when accessible and unprotected) 

(table 9 in volume IIa). The likelihood that Cochise sedge would be limited by springs is high, 

because Cochise sedge occurs in remote inaccessible areas, so habitat quality is assumed to be 

good and springs are classified as rare. 

The management effect row in table 89 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian Forest habitats, which means 

that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species than the 

other alternatives. Alternative A does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian 

areas nor does it distinguish between the riparian forest types. It lacks plan components relative to 

composition, structure, and function. In addition, this alternative has the least potential for 

improvement to riparian condition compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests and streamcourses because it has a 

focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian vegetation, 

stream banks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as 

possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language includes the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

565

following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as 

utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of 

impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent 

resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats 

(1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high 

priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation 

in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). 

Plan components in alternative A (Forestwide Range and Forestwide Riparian) protect and 

minimize impacts to riparian areas through management and fencing, but they also manage 

impacts through seeding (1987 Plan, pages 69, 176, and 174). However, it also allows salting to 

improve livestock distribution. Salting could be used in riparian areas to improve livestock 

management by concentrating cattle in certain areas, a practice which could be detrimental to 

associated species and their habitat and salting could be used in upland areas to distribute 

livestock outside of riparian areas (1987 Plan, pages 68 and 175). This is offset by a standard that 

requires that forage use be maintained at a level that assures recovery and continued existence of 

listed species (1987 Plan, pages 66-1 and 174) and specific objectives to protect riparian areas 

and allow them to recover in the first 20 years of the plan (1987 Plan, page 175). Also, alternative 

A promotes the establishment of allowable use guidelines with allotment-specific environmental

analysis or with the use of a table based on range condition and management strategy (1987 Plan, 

page 66-1). However, the range condition classes in the table are no longer used and the currently 

used overall approach for grazing utilization is adaptive management based on objectives 

established in site-specific environmental analysis. Problem areas would be addressed through the 

allotment management plan process or monitoring. Permitted use and capacities would be 

balanced by increasing or decreasing livestock numbers, changing management intensity levels, 

initiating changes in livestock class, season of use, and rotation patterns (1987 Plan, page 67), 

which are many of the same techniques implemented on the ground. Alternative A uses outdated 

language such as full capacity range and has less of an ecological approach to understory 

conditions than the other alternatives (1987 Plan, page 67). 

Ecosystem conditions in designated wilderness would be protected by prohibiting bicycles and 

stopping motorized vehicle intrusions and firewood cutting (1987 Plan, pages 106 to 107). Fireadapted ecosystems adjacent to riparian habitat would be allowed to burn naturally, provided 

prescribed conditions are met (1987 Plan, page 94). This could reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire and flooding to these habitats.

The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs because there would be a decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan components. 

Alternative A does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian areas, nor does it 

distinguish between the riparian forest types. It lacks plan components relative to composition, 

structure, and function. In addition, this alternative has the least potential for improvement to 

riparian condition compared to the other alternatives. Guidance for springs in alternative A is 

included in the Riparian section of the plan (MA 12 Riparian and Open Water) with no direction 

to maintain springs in their natural conditions. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 89 shows that under alternative B (modified), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

would remain in good condition and would slowly move toward desired conditions except 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

566

portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would remain static in areas of high recreation 

use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code 

HUCs.

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition, like alternative A, and slowly 

improve toward desired conditions, faster than alternative A.

Springs would remain in fair condition and slowly trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 89, the likelihood that Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock and Cochise sedge would 

be limited by their habitat on the forest is high to very high, depending on the habitat. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining the species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and springs (high) (table 9 in volume IIa). The 

likelihood that Cochise sedge would be limited by springs is high because Cochise sedge occurs 

in remote inaccessible areas, so habitat quality is assumed to be good and springs are classified as 

rare. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats 

associated with these species. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Montane Willow riparian forest types, this rating is 

primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that distinguish between 

the riparian forest types and that support their respective composition, structure, and function 

(FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional 

condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for vegetation 

diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 and 2; 

FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines 

protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also contribute to the 

viability of species associated with riparian areas by promoting properly functioning ecosystems 

that have the necessary physical and biological components to meet the needs of associated native 

species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

Also, alternative B (modified) has a guideline that balances recreation activities, permitted uses, 

and management activities with soil function, riparian vegetation, and water quality at the stream 

reach scale (FW-Rip-RipType-G-3). This guideline would not apply to fine scale activities and 

facilities such as intermittent livestock crossing locations, water gaps, or other infrastructure used 

to manage impacts to riparian areas at a larger scale. This guideline is intended to protect riparian 

function, especially in areas of high recreation use such as Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, and Fossil 

Creek and would be beneficial for these species because it could reduce trampling or mortality 

from these activities or uses.

Plan components in alternative B (modified) specify that livestock grazing maintains desired 

conditions of plant communities (FW-Graz-DC-2; FW-Graz-G-2). They also protect and 

minimize impacts to riparian areas by recommending that livestock use be restricted to the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

567

dormant season, recommending utilization levels on woody vegetation, maintenance of adequate 

vegetative cover to protect streambanks, and state that riparian areas are rarely negatively 

impacted by livestock (FW-Graz-G-7). This would maintain riparian structure, composition, and 

promote proper functioning. Guidelines are in place to reduce cattle concentrations and 

sedimentation into connected waters by specifying that range improvements should not interfere 

with riparian function and rare species, and further specifies a minimum distance of salts and 

supplements from riparian areas (FW-Graz-G-4 and 5). 

Forestwide desired conditions for springs (FW-Rip-Spr-DC 5) provide particularly beneficial 

guidance to preserve the physical and biological components of springs that provide habitat for 

narrowly endemic species and those with restricted distributions. 

SA-WSR-DC-1 helps retain the values for the wild and scenic rivers, including botanical values. 

Retaining the free-flowing conditions and the outstandingly remarkable values of the area will 

benefit Cochise sedge.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock and Cochise sedge, although individuals may be 

impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing for Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock and Cochise sedge, which are 

Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the

viability of these species than alternative A, primarily because they contain plan components for 

riparian forests and springs and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. 

Wetland Plants

Bollander’s quillwort and pond lily

These species are grouped together due to the similarity of these species (and their habitat). 

Wetlands are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Bollander’s quillwort, classified as an Other planning species, is most 

of the western United States, including California, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. The known location occurrence on the Coconino NF is 

Dude Lake on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

568

The pond lily, classified as an Other planning species, has a large range, occurring in many parts 

of the United States, but the species is rare on the forest. Known occurrences on the 

Coconino/Kaibab National Forest boundary are in the upper reaches of Sycamore Canyon.

Habitat

Both Bollander’s quillwort and pond lily occur in wetlands. Bollander’s quillwort is a small 

aquatic plant found in ponds, lake margins, and sometimes on mud. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distribution. They are vulnerable 

to perturbations in the environments such as ground-disturbing activities because of their small 

population sizes. Disturbance is also a risk from ground-disturbing management activities. The 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At-risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants.

Environmental Consequences

Table 90 summarizes the viability analyses for Bollander’s quillwort and pond lily. This table 

was developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that 

species’ viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in 

the discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

569

Table 90. Analysis summary for Bollanders’ quillwort and pond lily

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Bollander’s 

quillwort 

Pond lily

(Other) 

F Rank = F1*

Wetlands Good**, toward H Good, toward H

Management Effect Management Effect = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

Management Effect = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat,

**For analysis, wetland condition and trend are based on total acres of wetlands, which has the effect of giving greater 

weight to larger wetlands. The condition and trend is fair and slowly toward desired conditions when of individual wetlands 

is considered, instead of total wetland acres.

Common to All Alternatives

These species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations known 

and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute to 

species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). Additional information and 

analysis is discussed under the At-risk topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and once established could compete with these species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (pages 23, 69, 70, 182, 

206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 to 3, FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3, FW-InvasMgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-RecDev-G-2, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). Additional information and analysis is discussed under the 

Non-native Species and Disease topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

570

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would employ either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions, 

habitat for aquatic and riparian species, and connected downstream resources. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 23, 71, 72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1, 

and FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4, and FW-BioPhys-GeoG-8. 

All alternatives would not allow permanent salt within one-quarter mile of the edge of any 

riparian area except alternatives B (modified), C, and D would broaden this guideline to apply to 

salts, minerals, and other supplements with the intention to protect sensitive resources from 

excessive trampling, compaction, salinization, and other impacts (1987 Plan, page 175, FW-GrazG-5). 

Alternative A

Table 90 shows that under alternative A, wetlands would remain in good condition and trend 

toward desired condition based on total acres of wetlands. The condition would be fair and trend 

toward desired conditions if the evaluation is based on the number of wetlands. 

As shown in table 90, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

Bollander’s quillwort and pond lily is high for wetlands. This likelihood was derived by 

combining the species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for 

wetlands (moderate, by acres). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural 

range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is a 3 for wetlands, which means that 

plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species than 

the other alternatives. 

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests and streamcourses because it has a 

focus on riparian recovery, preventing damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels, 

and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as possible (1987 Plan, pages 

65-8, 172, 174). In support of this, alternative A would also construct 10 miles of fences per 

decade for the first two decades where necessary to protect key wet meadows, wetlands, and 

riparian regeneration from grazing (1987 Plan, page 175). Other protective language includes the 

following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as 

utility line or roads crossing streamcourses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of 

impact to riparian areas (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to 

prevent resource damage, utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian 

habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is 

a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and 

recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). 

However, much of the plan language for wetlands in alternative A is outdated and does not 

include current science about vegetative condition and natural disturbances. This alternative has 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

571

less potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the other alternatives primarily 

because alternative A does not distinguish between the various riparian areas differentiated in 

alternative B (modified), and lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, and 

function. 

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 90 shows that under alternative B (modified), wetlands would remain in good condition, 

and the trend would be toward desired condition regardless of whether the wetlands are evaluated 

based on the total acres of wetlands or the number of wetlands. 

As shown in table 90, the likelihood that these species would be limited by the quality of their 

habitat on the forest is high. This likelihood was derived by combining these species’ F Rank of 

F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for wetlands (moderate, by acres) (table 9 in 

volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

The management effect for wetlands is 2. This means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. This rating is 

primarily because there are updated desired conditions and guidelines that support wetland 

composition, structure, and function, connectivity between uplands and aquatic and riparian 

areas, and the maintenance of habitat for species (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2, FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 3, 

5, FW-Rip-All-G-2, 3, FW-WFP-DC-6). In addition, riparian functional condition would improve 

faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for vegetation diversity and riparian 

function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-G-2, FW-RipRipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function 

and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan 

components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also contribute to the viability of species 

associated with riparian areas by promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the 

necessary physical and biological components to meet the needs of associated native species 

(FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 

Alternative C

The effects to wetland plants under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except Bollander’s quillwort occurs in the Blue Ridge Management Area, which has management 

direction in addition to that found in the revised plan. This additional management direction 

includes beneficial guidance for wetlands that emphasizes the ecological integrity of watersheds 

and native vegetation, protected and restored wetlands, low disturbance recreation activities that 

do not negatively impact soil conditions or hydrologic flow, and reduced disturbance from public 

motorized access (MA-BlueRidge-DC-1, 3, 10, G-1, 2, 3). This plan language could improve 

degraded conditions where they occur and reduce potential negative impacts such as accelerated 

erosion and sedimentation into water from recreation. 

Alternative D

The effects to wetland plants under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

572

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Bollander’s quillwort and pond lily, although individuals may be impacted by 

site-specific activities or uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D would provide better 

protection than alternative A, primarily because they contain updated plan components for 

wetlands that better address wetland composition, structure, and function and connectivity 

between wetlands and upland environments. Alternative C would provide slightly better 

protection than alternative B (modified) because of additional emphasis on wetlands and 

watersheds and reduced disturbance from recreation, motorized use, or large group events 

Verde Formation Plants

Heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort, Verde breadroot, 

Verde four-nerve daisy, Verde Valley Sage 

Soil is a limiting factor for plant communities on the Verde Formation, a soil type consisting of 

white Tertiary (Miocene and Pliocene) limestone lakebed deposits that are high in lithium, 

nitrates, and magnesium. The composition of the Verde Formation helps rare plant species avoid 

competition from more common species and functions to retain water in wet periods to provide 

for recruitment. The Verde Formation occupies about 70 percent of the Desert Communities and 

about 53 percent of the Semi-desert grasslands ERUs. This important formation defines a large 

portion of the plant life in the Verde Valley area. The harsh soils serve an important function in 

excluding more common species. The soils of the Verde Formation are generally not suited to 

intensive disturbance (see Soil Report).

These species have been grouped due to their strong affinity to the Verde Formation, a significant 

and defining feature in the Verde Valley. It strongly influences the plant community in the areas 

where it exists (see Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs in the Coarse Filter: 

Habitat section and Arizona cliffrose in the Fine Filter: Threatened and Endangered Species 

section). Desert Communities (including Verde Formation), Semi-desert Grassland (including 

Verde Formation), and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs are more fully evaluated in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section.

Heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort, and Verde Valley sage 

are members of the plant community associated with Arizona cliffrose, the only endangered plant 

species on the forest. Verde breadroot occurs on the Verde Formation, but farther east near the 

Camp Verde area. The Arizona cliffrose is more fully evaluated in the Fine Filter: Threatened and 

Endangered Species section.

All but one of these species is a Southwestern Region sensitive species. The Verde four-nerve 

daisy is in the Other species category.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Heathleaf wild buckwheat is narrowly endemic and occurs only in northern and central Arizona. 

Ripley’s wild buckwheat is narrowly endemic and occurs only in northern and central Arizona. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

573

Rusby’s milkwort is narrowly endemic to north-western and central Arizona, from the Peach 

Springs to Kingman area, Fraziers Well, Verde Valley, Chino Valley, and Lime Creek near its 

confluence with the Verde River. 

Verde breadroot is narrowly endemic. All the documented locations are on the Verde Formation 

near Camp Verde, Arizona.

Verde four-nerve daisy is narrowly endemic and only occurs on a series of four low hills east of 

Camp Verde.

Verde Valley sage is narrowly endemic, growing on the Verde Formation in central Arizona. 

Habitat

Heathleaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, and Verde four-nerve daisy are associated 

with Desert Communities ERU and the Verde Formation in that ERU. Heathleaf wild buckwheat 

and Ripley’s wild buckwheat grow on low arid hillsides associated with a unique white outcrop, 

which appears to be a shallow gravelly loam that develops over white Tertiary limestone lakebed 

deposits high in lithium and magnesium (Verde Formation). Verde four-nerve daisy grows in the 

gypsum, marl, and gravel substrates of four low hills east of Camp Verde.

Rusby’s milkwort and Verde Valley sage occurs on the Desert Communities, Semi-desert 

Grasslands, and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs, as well as the Verde Formation in the 

Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands ERUs. 

Verde breadroot grows on the Verde Formation in Desert Communities and Semi-desert 

Grasslands ERUs.

Risk Factors

Threats to these species are disturbance to plants and rarity. Excessive disturbance of Verde 

Formation soils could result in accelerated erosion, soil compaction, or an increase in soil pH. 

The main threat to the Verde Formation ecosystem is dispersed recreation off of designated trails 

due to increasing recreation demand in the Verde Valley. Social trails and off-trail activities on 

this type of soil can remove vegetation and accelerate erosion more rapidly than on other sites 

within Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands. In addition, off-trail mountain biking 

entering the 1,208-acre Verde Valley Botanical Area from Dead Horse State Park has led to a 

proliferation of social trails that has accelerated erosion within the botanical area and habitat for 

associated plant species (see Desert Communities ERU). Rarity is an inherent threat to these 

species due to their restricted distribution. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 91 summarizes the viability analyses for heathleaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild 

buckwheat, Verde breadroot, Verde four-nerve daisy, Rusby’s milkwort, and Verde Valley sage. 

This table was developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section 

above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, 

likelihood that these species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by 

alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, 

including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the 

management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

574

for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

575

Table 91. Analysis summary for species associated with the Verde Formation

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and status Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Heathleaf wild 

buckwheat 

DC Poor, away VH Poor away VH

(Sensitive) 

Narrowly Endemic

Ripley’s wild 

buckwheat 

(Sensitive)

Narrowly Endemic

Verde four-nerve 

daisy (Other)

Narrowly Endemic 

F Rank =F1*

Verde 

Formation 

soil in DC

Fair, static H Fair, slowly 

toward

H 

Rusby’s milkwort DC Poor, away H Poor, away H

(Sensitive)

Narrowly Endemic

SDG Poor, away H Poor, slightly 

toward

H

Verde Valley sage PJES Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H

(S)

Narrowly Endemic

F Rank = F2*

Verde 

Formation 

soil in DC

Fair, static M-H Fair, slowly 

toward

M-H

Verde 

Formation 

soil SDG 

Poor, slowly 

toward

H Poor, slowly 

toward

H

Verde breadroot DC Poor, away VH Poor away VH

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1*

SDG Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward

VH

Verde 

Formation 

soil in DC

Fair, static H Fair, slowly 

toward

H

Verde 

Formation 

soil SDG

Poor, slowly 

toward

VH Poor, slowly 

toward

VH

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan 

components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration 

to some occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat, F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

576

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils 

(such as the Verde Formation) that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices should be developed. 

Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater 

than 40 percent grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where 

soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. 

Heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort and Verde Valley sage 

occur in the Verde Valley Botanical Area. The botanical area was established with the adoption of 

the current plan (Alternative A). Botanical areas serve as places for study for the unique plants or 

plant communities for which they were established while protecting the unique physical and 

biological features within them (1987 Plan, page 194, SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5 and 6). This added 

protection will protect the occurrences of these species within the boundary of the botanical area. 

Alternative A

Table 91 shows that Desert Communities would remain in poor condition and trend away from 

desired conditions due to increased density of shrubs and understory species. The Verde 

Formation soil in the Desert Communities ERU would remain in fair condition and have a static 

trend related to desired conditions due to continued drought. Under current grazing strategies and 

restricted cross-country off-highway vehicle travel, soil organics and vegetative production 

should very slowly move toward desired condition with normal precipitation. 

Semi-desert Grasslands would remain in poor condition and trend away from desired conditions 

due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and increased fragmentation from urbanization. 

The Verde Formation in the Semi-desert Grasslands ERU in would remain in poor condition 

because it is still recovering from legacy grazing practices, improperly located roads, and lack of 

fire. It would trend slowly toward desired conditions due to implementation of improved grazing 

strategies and closure of roads. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition, but would trend away from 

desired conditions due to departure in the fire return interval, increases in trees and shrubs, and 

decreases in understory that helps hold soil in place and helps to carry fire. Increased density of 

trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition with these species and facilitate a higher 

fire severity than these plants evolved with thereby degrading the habitat. 

As shown in table 91, the likelihood that these species would be limited by the quality of their 

habitat is moderate-high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining these species’ F Ranks of F1 or F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each ERU: Desert Communities (high), Verde Formation soil in Desert Communities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

577

(moderate), Semi-desert Grassland and Verde Formation soil in Semi-desert Grassland (high), and 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings 

are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all the habitats in 

this group, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A 

provides outdated direction for Desert Communities and for a large portion of Semi-desert 

Grassland (in the Verde Valley MA). This outdated direction emphasizes range and forage 

improvement rather than composition, structure, and natural processes as in the desired 

conditions. This alternative also emphasizes using methods such as soil scarification and 

broadcast seeding which could facilitate the establishment of invasive plant species which 

compete with native species and can facilitate the spread of wildfire to which Desert 

Communities is not adapted. 

A plan component in the Verde Valley MA that recommends review of soil potential for 

revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment is positive however for areas containing the 

Verde Formation. Mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe impairment of soil 

productivity. Another positive plan component in this same MA would improve conditions on 

prioritized watersheds in unsatisfactory condition in the Verde Valley MA. This could move 

degraded areas toward desired conditions depending on the methods used. 

Alternative A also does not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three 

pinyon juniper types which differ from each other in composition, structure, and processes. There 

is one broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper and plan direction varies by slope. 

Consequently, managers lack specific guidance for the Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU, 

which supports Rusby’s milkwort and Verde Valley sage.

The suitability of mechanized use in botanical areas is not explicitly addressed in alternative A 

resulting in vague direction to managers. It is unclear as to whether mechanized use is prohibited, 

is allowed only on trails, or is allowed on and off trail in these areas. Consequently, mechanized 

use could damage vegetation or contribute to accelerated soil erosion within localized areas in 

botanical areas.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 91 shows that Desert Communities and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs would have 

the same condition and trend as alternative A. Verde Formation soils in Desert Communities 

would have a fair condition and would slowly trend toward desired conditions. 

Like alternative A, Semi-desert Grassland ERU would remain in poor condition but unlike 

alternative A, this ERU would trend slightly toward desired conditions due to plan objectives that 

would restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU during each 10-year 

period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1). The plan objective would remove tree 

and shrub cover and create more open conditions. Increased fragmentation from urbanization 

would be expected to continue. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

578

The condition and trend of Verde Formation soil in Semi-desert Grasslands ERUs would be the 

same as alternative A (poor, slowly toward). 

As shown in table 91, the likelihood that these plant species associated with Verde Formation soil 

would be limited by habitat quality is moderate-high to very high, the same as alternative A. 

These likelihoods were derived by combining these species’ F Ranks of F1 or F2 with the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU. 

The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats in this group, which means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. This rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated direction on the 

composition, structure, and processes for Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grasslands, and 

PJES. This direction and the anticipated effects are discussed in greater detail by ERU in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Alternative B (modified) also distinguishes between the grassland 

and pinyon juniper habitats on the forest. 

There are no specific components for soil for the Desert Communities or Semi-desert Grasslands 

ERUs, but the forestwide guidance for soil applies and would be beneficial for Verde Formation 

soil. Application of the desired condition for soil (FW-Soil DC-1 to 4) would improve soil 

condition slowly over time when used in project planning. One of the desired conditions (FWSoil-DC-1) provides for proper soil function, water distribution and nutrient cycling for all 

vegetation. Forestwide soil guidelines would avoid excessive ground disturbance, limit 

accelerated erosion, and minimize bringing more calcareous soil to the surface, which could limit 

soil plant nutrient availability (FW-Soil-G-1, 2, 3). 

Alternative B (modified) also includes more general plan components that could improve the 

habitat quality for these species. The plan components for all ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1-4) and 

All Terrestrial ERUs (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2) provide desired conditions for ecosystems across 

the forest to assure proper function and are resilient to the frequency, extent, intensity, and 

severity of disturbances. Forestwide guidance in Wildlife, Fish, and Plants provides desired 

conditions for properly functioning ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that 

support native plants and animals (FW-WFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components 

for sensitive and/or endemic species to carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G10). These components are complementary to the components for all ecosystems and all 

terrestrial ecosystems and provide additional assurance for the viability of these species.

Unlike alternative A, mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable except 

mechanized travel would be suitable on routes designated for mechanized travel. This plan 

language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism (see Chapter 4 

Recreation and Transportation Suitability). Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be 

done for this direction to take effect. This suitability recommendation is considered to be 

protective of the special features including plants and their habitat because impacts to the plant 

species would be evaluated during the environmental analysis and impacts would be limited to 

the trail prism. This direction applies to the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert 

Communities) and the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (178 acres of 

Desert Communities). Currently only the Verde Valley Botanical Area has designated trails 

whereas there are none in the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area which 

also has most of the occurrences of Bigelow’s onion on the forest (SEINet 2016). This alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

579

has specific guidance restricting travel to foot traffic within the Cottonwood Basin Geological 

and Botanical Area (SA-RNABotGeo-G-7). Designation of this area will preserve this unique 

botanical community and help protect the area from such threats as illegal off-road vehicle use. 

This guidance would remove vehicle travel and would better protect the unique rock formations 

and plants occurring in this area. 

Unlike alternative A, mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable except 

mechanized travel would be suitable on routes designated for mechanized travel. This plan 

language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism (see Chapter 4 

Recreation and Transportation Suitability). Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be 

done for this direction to take effect. This suitability recommendation is protective of the special 

features including plants and their habitat because impacts to the plant species would be evaluated 

during the environmental analysis and impacts would be limited to the trail prism. This direction 

applies to the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert Communities) which contains 

all the Verde Formation species except the Verde four-nerve daisy. 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except the following. Unlike 

alternative A and alternative B (modified), mechanized use in botanical and geological areas 

would not be suitable even on routes designated for mechanized travel. This plan language would 

limit soil and vegetation impacts that occur as a result of mechanized use but not impacts from 

horseback use or hiking that might also occur on these trails. Subsequent environmental analysis 

would need to be done for this direction to take effect. This suitability recommendation is 

protective of the special features including plants and their habitat because impacts to the plant 

species would be evaluated during the environmental analysis. This direction applies to the Verde 

Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert Communities) which contains all the Verde 

Formation species except the Verde four-nerve daisy.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort, 

Verde four-nerve daisy, Verde breadroot and Verde Valley sage, although individuals may be 

impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing for heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s 

milkwort, Verde breadroot and Verde Valley sage, which are Forest Service sensitive species.

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of these species than 

alternative A. Reasons include the focus on structure, function, and resiliency for all ERUs, 

additional language that addresses rarity and provides for endemic species and species with 

restricted distributions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

580

Volcanic Soil Plants

Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate phacelia

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Sunset Crater beardtongue is narrowly endemic and classified as a Forest Service sensitive 

species. It is limited to the Sunset Crater volcanic field near Flagstaff, including the Coconino NF

and Sunset Crater National Monument. It also occurs within the Cinder Hills OHV area.

The known distribution of Diamond Valley suncup, classified as an Other planning species, is 

from southern Utah into northern Arizona, where it occurs in Mohave and Coconino counties. 

Serrate phacelia, classified as an Other planning species, has an unusually disjunct distribution; it 

is found near Flagstaff, Arizona, and in New Mexico in the Zuni-Bandera Volcanic Field 

(AZGFD 2003c). It is found on the forest and Sunset Crater Volcanoes National Monument and it 

also occurs within the Cinder Hills OHV area.

Habitat

The Sunset Crater beardtongue occurs in the Ponderosa Pine, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, and 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERUs. Additional information on these habitats can be found in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section. The soil in the Ponderosa Pine ERU in which Sunset Crater 

beardtongue grows is typically a layer of cinders 2 to 5 inches deep with a layer of silty soil 

below, important for water retention at the root level of this species.

Diamond Valley suncup occurs in Ponderosa Pine ERU in volcanic soils.

Serrate phacelia occurs in Ponderosa Pine ERU, in deep cindery soil in the Sunset Crater volcanic 

field. This forb is more resilient to soil disturbance than some of the perennial species that occur 

in this volcanic field because it is an annual and occurs on both steep and flat terrain. Natural 

disturbances in this cinder soil include wind and natural movement due to steep slopes. 

Risk Factors

Dispersed recreation impacts are a threat to the cinder soil habitat used by these species. Rarity is 

an inherent threat to these species due to their restricted distributions. 

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At Risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about the habitats.

Table 92 summarizes the viability analyses for Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley 

suncup, and serrate phacelia. This table was developed using the analysis process described under 

the Species Viability section above. It includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat 

condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by habitat, and the projected 

management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome 

of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result 

of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The lower the management effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

581

alternative is for that species viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are 

explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 

Table 92. Analysis summary for Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate 

phacelia 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D 

Species 

and status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is limited

Sunset 

Crater 

beardtongue 

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = 

F2* 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: M-H 

Low objective long 

term: M-H 

High objective: M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: M-H 

Low objective long 

term: M-H 

High objective: MH 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term then

away at long 

term 

M-H Low and high 

objectives: Fair, 

toward at short 

term then away

at long term

M-H 

PJW Good, static M Good, static M 

Diamond 

Valley 

suncup 

(Other) 

F Rank = 

F1*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: H

Low objective long 

term: M-H 

High objective: M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: H

Low objective long 

term: M-H 

High objective: MH 

Serrate 

phacelia

(Other) 

F Rank = 

F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: M

Low objective long 

term: L-M 

High objective: L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective short 

term: M

Low objective long 

term: L-M 

High objective: L-M 

Management Effect PP, PJG, PJW = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. Quality 

of habitat or habitat elements is 

maintained or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some occurrences.

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat. *F2 = Rare on the forest within 

its habitat – occupies a small portion of its habitat. F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

582

Common to All Alternatives

These species are considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations known 

and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute to 

species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and once established could compete with this species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 

69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, FW Invas G 1-3, FWInvas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-3, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8, 

FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More 

detailed analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic section called Non-native Species 

and Disease. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils

(such as the Verde Formation) that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices should be developed. 

Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater 

than 40 percent grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where 

soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. This will mitigate impacts to these species 

where implemented.

All alternatives restrict vehicle travel to designated routes forestwide except in the designated 

Cinder Hills Off-highway Vehicle Area (MA 13 for alternative A). The OHV area includes a large 

portion of the Sunset Crater volcanic field, so as a result, species living there are subjected to the 

impacts of OHV use such as habitat destruction, physical crushing of plants, and introduction of 

non-native invasive weeds. Sunset Crater beardtongue and serrate phacelia are known to occur in 

the OHV area. There are no documented occurrences of Diamond Valley suncup in MA 13, but it 

occurs in nearby Sunset Crater National Monument, so is likely to occur there as well. 

All alternatives include the Strawberry Crater Wilderness where Sunset Crater beardtongue and 

serrate phacelia occur. Plan language for designated wilderness would contribute to the viability 

of these species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and 

would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

583

management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent 

wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 107, 108-1 through 108-4; 

SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 92 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 

Table 92 shows that Pinyon Juniper Woodlands ERU would be in good condition with a static 

trend relative to desired conditions under all alternatives. 

Table 92 shows that under all alternatives, the habitat condition and trend for Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass would remain in fair condition, but would trend toward desired conditions in the short term 

due to expected mechanical treatments and burning using wildfire for resource objectives. 

However, the trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU is expected to move away from 

desired conditions in the long term, because generally, the treatment level is insufficient to offset 

the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

As shown in table 92, the overall likelihood that the volcanic soil plant species would be limited 

by the quality of their habitat on the Forest is low-moderate to high. These likelihoods were 

derived by using the process in table 9 in volume IIa and combining the species’ F Ranks of F1, 

F2, or F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass (low-moderate), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for 

low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), and Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland (low). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Pinyon Juniper 

with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Woodland and Ponderosa Pine, which means that plan components in 

alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. 

In alternative A, the management emphasis is on off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities in 

Management Area 13, the Cinder Hills Off-Highway Vehicle Area (1987 Plan, pages 178-181). 

Off-highway vehicles can degrade the habitat for these species through accelerated erosion and 

can damage or kill individual plants. To offset this, guidelines in alternative A support closing 

areas or limiting future access in the future based on locations of sensitive plant species and 

support monitoring of Sunset Crater beardtongue (1987 Plan, pages 180-182). Although the 

guidelines are protective for sensitive plant species, limitations on future access and area closures 

have not occurred due to the popularity of the area. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

584

Alternative A also does not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three 

pinyon juniper types, which differ in composition, structure, and processes. There is one broad 

vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper and plan direction varies by slope. Consequently, 

vegetation structure would not be equitably distributed across the landscape. As a result the 

unique composition and structure of Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Woodland is 

not addressed in this alternative.

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape, while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as Sunset 

Crater beardtongue.

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 92 shows that the condition and trend for the Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to 

alternative A, remaining in poor condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term 

under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). 

However, in the short term under the high vegetation treatment objectives (260,050 acres 

mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long term under both the low and high 

vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to fair and trend toward desired 

conditions. 

Like alternative A, the Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERU would be in good condition with a static 

trend relative to desired conditions. 

Table 92 shows that the condition and trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would be the 

same as alternative A. The condition of the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would remain fair, 

but the trend would be toward desired conditions in the short term, then trend slowly away from 

desired conditions in the long term because the treatment levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2) are not 

sufficient to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

As shown in table 92, the overall likelihoods that habitat would be limiting to these species is the 

same as alternative A. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. In contrast to alternative A, the management effect is classified 

as a 2 for Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Woodland, and Ponderosa Pine, which 

means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute more to the 

viability of this species than alternative A. 

This rating is because these alternatives clearly distinguish between different Pinyon Juniper 

types on the forest and provides desired conditions, objectives and guidance that are specific to 

the each type. Desired conditions would promote all age classes of pinyon and juniper to assure 

sustainability over time and promote mid to older age classes distributed in a manner that reflects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

585

natural disturbance regimes. Management direction would promote properly functioning 

ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic 

disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU 

specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5-

9; G-1-3, 5). There is additional direction for these ERUs within the wildland-urban interface. 

Within wildland-urban interface, fire and vegetation management would favor low-intensity 

surface fires (FW-WUI-DC-8). This is intended to mitigate the risks to surrounding communities. 

This would benefit habitat in Pinyon Juniper with Grass because it is generally consistent with the 

natural fire regime. It would be inconsistent with the fire regimes in Pinyon Juniper Woodland

and could result in the habitat having increased vulnerability to uncharacteristic fires in localized 

areas of the wildland-urban interface. 

Rarity is a risk for Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate phacelia. 

Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity better than alternative A. This is due 

to more forestwide guidance to address rare habitats and species. This is discussed in the At-risk 

section under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics. 

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative 

A. Although all alternatives provide mitigations for effects to these species from management 

actions, the mitigations are stronger in alternative B (modified). (See table 92.) Disturbance to 

Plants and At-risk species are further addressed in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics 

section above.

Alternative B (modified) distinguishes between the different Pinyon Juniper types on the forest

and provides desired conditions, objectives and guidance that are specific to the each type. 

Management direction would promote properly functioning ecosystems that are resilient to 

natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic disturbances and reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between desirable non-native species 

and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems thereby furthering sustainability and 

adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU specific direction would provide 

for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and 

distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5 to 9; G-1, 2, 3, 5). 

Alternative B (modified) provides plan components to promote properly functioning and resilient 

ecosystems, promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

disturbances, and promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and 

properly functioning ecosystems thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC1, 2, 3, 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). 

In alternative B (modified) removal of restrictions on use of wildfires with resource objectives 

would lead to more open stand conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the 

landscape, reducing the risks of habitat loss for these species. 

Like alternative A, alternatives B (modified), C, and D emphasize off-trail motorized recreation in 

the Cinder Hills OHV Area, which could damage individual plants or populations. These 

alternatives also emphasize clearly marked boundaries to prevent off-road driving outside the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

586

designated area or in adjacent Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument (1987 Plan, pages 179 

and 181 and MA-VolcanWd-DC-1). This would contribute to the viability of plants outside this 

designated area. These alternatives would maintain the habitat for this species better than 

alternative A outside the OHV area by maintaining the integrity, form, and process associated 

with volcanic features (MA-VolcanWd-DC-1 and G-1). 

Soil is a factor for these species. There is high soil disturbance from off-highway vehicles in the 

Cinder Hills Off-Highway Vehicle Area, but off-highway vehicle use does not occur in the 

adjoining habitat for this species. The forestwide guidance for soil in alternative B (modified) 

protects soil better than alternative A.

One of the three wildernesses recommended in this alternative has habitat for all three of these 

species, because it contains ponderosa pine and the appropriate cinder soils. There are 29 acres of 

ponderosa pine in the recommended wilderness that would be added to Strawberry Crater 

Wilderness. This would reduce disturbance on an additional 29 acres of the cinder soil habitat 

needed by these species by emphasizing non-motorized use and only having limited motor 

vehicle use for administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-G-3 and 5). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified), except there is no recommended 

wilderness. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate phacelia, 

although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses. Consequently, none of 

the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for Sunset Crater beardtongue, which 

is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D would contribute more 

to the viability of these species than alternative A, because of the improved plan components for 

soil, ERUs, recommended wilderness, for at-risk and rare species. The plan components in 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D focus on structure, function and resiliency for all ERUs and 

change the emphasis on management in Ponderosa Pine to acknowledge the role of structure, 

function, and resiliency that would benefit all organisms, including rare plants such as Sunset 

Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, and serrate phacelia. Guidance in the Ponderosa 

Pine, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, and Pinyon Juniper Woodlands ERUs acknowledges the 

presence of understory vegetation and provides for it as well. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

587

Fine Filter Individual Species

Allen’s lappet-browed bat

Allen’s lappet-browed bat is a Southwestern Region sensitive species with restricted distribution. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Allen’s lappet-browed bats occurs from central Mexico north through the southwestern United 

States, including Arizona, New Mexico, southern Nevada, and southern Utah. There are at least 

13 occupied roosts known on the forest. 

Habitat

Allen’s lappet-browed bats are associated with cliffs and caves, as well as the Ponderosa Pine, 

Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire ERUs (in which they roost in 

large trees and snags with exfoliating bark). In a study on Coconino NF, researchers found this 

species exclusively used ponderosa pine snags for maternity roosts. Snags were typically largediameter with exfoliating bark, with high surrounding basal areas and high surrounding snag and 

log densities (Rabe et al.1998). 

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors are disturbance to roosts and rarity. Individuals and colonies may be 

impacted by disturbance to active maternity or winter roosts in caves by activities such as 

dispersed recreation, caving, and climbing. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 93 summarizes the viability analysis for Allen’s lappet-browed bat. This table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

this species is limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

588

Table 93. Analysis summary for Allen’s lappet-browed bat 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Allen’s lappetbrowed bat 

(Sensitive)

Restricted 

distribution 

F Rank =F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short term 

then Fair at long 

term, toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

MCFF Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at long 

term 

M Low objective: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at 

long term

High objective: 

Good, toward

at short term 

then Good, 

static at long 

term 

Low objective: 

M 

High objective: 

L 

MCIF Fair, away at

short term then 

Poor, away at 

long term

Short term: M 

Long term: M-H 

Fair, static M 

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

Caves 

(Assuming 

Moderate)

Fair, static M Fair, static M 

Management Effect PP, MCFF, MCIF, caves = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some occurrences. 

Cliffs = 4: Decline in habitat quality 

as a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may 

not exist or may be few. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

* F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would provide for the large trees and large snags with exfoliating bark needed for 

roosting. Plan language in alternative A retains snags in Mexican spotted owl PACs, steep slopes, 

restricted habitat (mixed conifer, pine-oak and riparian forests outside of PACs and steep slopes), 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

589

and in northern goshawk habitat (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-5, 65-7). Plan language 

promotes snags 18 inches d.b.h. or greater outside of goshawk post-fledging family areas with 3 

snags per acre in spruce-fir and mixed conifer, 2 snags per acre in ponderosa pine; greater density 

of snags near meadows, riparian areas, and key water sources; protection of snags during fuel 

treatments (1987 Plan, pages 65-9, 70-3, 95). Other large snags would be provided in potential 

nest sites for osprey (1987 Plan, pages 124) and large trees and snags would be protected during 

fuel treatments in the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis Area (1987 Plan, page 206-73, 

206-101). Current and future large trees are promoted by reducing competition and protecting 

them during prescribed fires (1987 Plan, pages 65-5, 206-73, and 206-75). 

Plan language in alternatives B (modified), C, and D promotes snags 18 inches or greater at d.b.h. 

at an average 1 to 2 snags per acre, old-growth structure (include old trees and snags) throughout 

the landscape, characteristic disturbances to produce snags, development of old-growth structure 

where it is lacking, protection of existing and developing old-growth structure, and preference for 

presettlement trees and large tall snags near openings and within groups (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5, 

6, 9, G-1, 2, 3, 5; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-2, 3, 4; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 3; FWTerrERU-MC-All-G-2, 3). 

All alternatives have seasonal closures in habitat for Allen’s lappet-browed bat that would provide 

snag-roosting and foraging habitat with reduced disturbance from motorized activities. This 

would be beneficial for reproduction and survival. The seasonal closures are Pine Grove, 

Rattlesnake, and Woody Ridge (1987 Plan, pages 59, 206-114, Off-Road Driving Management 

Plan (map) for Land and Resource Management Planning (Revised May 1991); FW-Rec-Disp-G6, MA-PineBelt-DC- 5,6,7,8, MA-LkMary-DC-4, MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 4, and MA-LkMary-S1). 

All alternatives would manage caves used by bat colonies to maintain or enhance bat populations 

(1987 Plan, page 51-1, FW-BioPhys-Gio-G-6); provide appropriate protection from projects or 

activities or enhancement to sensitive species habitat (which includes Allen’s lappet-browed bat) 

(1987 Plan, page 64-1); and to apply timing restrictions to projects and activities that potentially 

negatively affect sensitive species (FW-WFP-G-8). The intent is to avoid impacts to survival or 

successful reproduction. This latter language would apply to snag roosts or cliffs as appropriate.

All alternatives have guidelines that would protect the habitat for this species in the vicinity of 

Walnut Canyon. These would be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of these species and 

would benefit the habitat for their prey species. Alternative A includes a guideline to protect the 

natural and cultural resources in the wildland-urban interface and the lands surrounding the 

(Walnut Canyon) national monument (1987 Plan, page 206-109). Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D include a guideline for activities and uses on the forest to be managed to protect cultural 

sites and to preserve habitat for disturbance-sensitive species both on the forest and within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument (MA-Walnut-G-1). 

All alternatives would protect caves and areas immediately adjacent from unnatural disturbances 

such as seismic disturbances and drilling. All alternatives would evaluate or utilize a 300-foot 

buffer around caves to protect cave and karst resources and ecology, Collectively these plan 

components would maintain the microclimate, airflow, chemical, physical, and biological 

conditions within the cave necessary for bat roosting, overwintering, reproduction and survival 

(1987 Plan, pages 51-1, 51-2; FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-2, 3, and 4). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

590

Alternative A

Table 93 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 

Table 93 shows that Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire would remain in fair condition and trend 

toward desired conditions in the short term. In the long term, the trend would become static as 

treatment levels would not be able to keep up with growth and regeneration; seedlings and 

saplings would make gains through excess regeneration where openings are created and medium 

and large trees would lose ground in open stands as canopy gaps are filled in. 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would remain in fair condition and continue trending away 

from desired conditions in the short term due contradictory direct related to the management of 

wildfires in wilderness areas. In the long term, the condition would become poor and the trend 

would continue to move away from desired conditions. 

Cliffs would remain in good condition with a static trend related to desired conditions. Generally, 

caves would remain in fair condition with a static trend related to desired conditions. However, 

caves that are inaccessible and rarely visited would be in good condition, while caves that are 

accessible and receive a high level of visitation would be in poor condition. 

As shown in Table 93, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality is low to 

moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by combining this 

species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Ponderosa 

Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; lowmoderate for high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (moderate), Mixed 

Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate in short term and high in the long term), cliffs (low), and 

caves in fair condition (moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered 

to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the Ponderosa 

Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs and 

caves, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability 

of this species than the other alternatives. 

Old-growth structure (old large trees and snags) is an important element of habitat for Allen’s 

lappet-browed bat. Alternative A contains outdated language for old growth as well as updated 

language that reflects more recent science. The outdated plan language would allocate old growth 

as 100- to 300-acre stands over no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem management 

area (1987 Plan, page 129). Some of the updated language would have allocations consisting of 

landscape percentages meeting old-growth conditions and not specific acres. This former strategy 

would result in lower habitat quality for large tree and snag dependent species compared to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

591

alternative B (modified) because it would result in less vertical structure and age class diversity; 

tend to maintain a more continuous canopy that would be conducive to crown fires; and result in 

more even-aged conditions. This structure and age class diversity does not reflect frequent lowseverity fires characteristic of Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERUs and 

does not reflect desired conditions. During wildfires, there is likely to be more area in mixed 

severity condition with 25 percent to 75 percent loss of dominant overstory, compared to a loss of 

25 percent or less which is characteristic of low-severity fires. Old-growth stands would be less 

resilient to endemic levels of disturbances. Habitat in these 100-300 acre areas would be at higher 

risk from uncharacteristic fire and have higher susceptibility to insects and disease compared to 

alternative B (modified). Uncharacteristic fire could remove roosting habitat by incinerating large 

trees and snags. Die-off from insects and disease could result in a beneficial short-term increase 

in roosting habitat but have a negative long-term effect of reducing the number of large live trees, 

and losing snags through windthrow because the stands may be opened up. 

In addition to the plan language under Common to All Alternatives, plan language in 

Management Area 3 (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer less than 40 percent slope) promotes 

managing for an average of 200 snags (including potential snags) per 100 acres over at least 

50 percent of the forested land within 10K blocks, but minimum diameter for a ponderosa 

pine/mixed conifer snag is greater than 12 inches d.b.h. (1987 Plan, page 126, 127, 143), which at 

the small end is likely too small for use by Allen’s lappet-browed bats. Snags would generally not 

be available for firewood unless designated because of being surplus to wildlife needs (1987 Plan, 

page 126), recently dead and poor risk trees and snags with certain characteristics in excess of 

planned snag densities may be harvested (1987 Plan, pages 130, 132, 147), which may include 

trees of suitable size and structure for this species. 

The management effect is classified as a 4 for cliffs, which means there is a decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or may be few. Alternative A lacks plan components specific to cliffs 

and the habitats they provide. Most of the guidance for cliffs is limited to visual quality and the 

importance of cliffs to archaeology. (1987 Plan, pages 206-43 and 206-46). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 93 shows that the Ponderosa Pine ERU, cliffs, and caves would have the same condition 

and trend as alternative A.

Like alternative A, under the low treatment objectives (2,900 acres mechanical, 8,000 acres 

prescribed fire) Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition with a 

trend toward desired conditions in the short term. In the long term, Mixed Conifer with Frequent 

Fire would be in fair condition with a static trend. Under the high treatment objectives 

(15,000 mechanical, 8,000 prescribed fire), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would 

improve to good condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term, then a static 

trend relative to desired conditions in the long term. In addition, at least 7,500 acres of Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire would be managed using wildfires for resource objectives within the 

natural fire regime, during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-MCMCFF-O-1, 2, 3). 

The Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition, but the trend would 

improve to static relative to desired conditions. Although there are no plan objectives for 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

592

treatment in this ERU, activities and uses would follow the revised plan and would maintain or 

move toward desired conditions.

As shown in table 93, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality is low to 

moderate. These likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F3 with the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term 

and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (moderate under the low treatment objective, low 

under the high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate), cliffs (low), 

and caves in fair condition (moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats in this group, which means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. For the Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire ERUs, this rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated 

direction on the composition, structure, and processes of these ERUs based on current science. 

For cliffs and caves, this rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated direction 

related to maintaining the integrity and function of these biophysical features and the specialized 

habitat they provide. For example, plan components in alternative B (modified) would apply 

forestwide rather than specific areas like in alternative A. Desired conditions promote cliffs and 

caves to be generally undisturbed by human activities, promote maintenance of their geological, 

hydrological, and biological resources (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1), and promote specialized 

habitats for a variety of plant and animals species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-6). A guideline in the 

section for Geological Features states that projects should be designed and uses should be 

managed to maintain the integrity and function of cliffs and caves, and where alteration of these 

resources cannot be avoided, they should be mitigated to mimic pre-disturbance conditions and 

function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). 

Other beneficial desired conditions for cave-dwelling species like Allen’s lappet-browed bat 

would provide specialized niches for roosting and overwintering, disease within natural levels, 

and protection and maintenance of subterranean microclimate and ecology. See FW-BioPhysGeo-DC- 3, 4 and G-8. Beneficial guidelines include maintenance and protection of the chemical, 

physical, and biological conditions of cave resources and protection of endemic cave species 

(FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-2, 4, and 7), management of caves to prevent disturbance and spread of 

disease, and the use of wildlife-friendly gates that meet Bat Conservation International 

recommendations (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G- 5 and 6). This guideline would be beneficial in reducing 

disturbance, which is a risk factor for this species. 

A guideline in alternative B (modified) addresses species-specific threats and rarity better than 

alternative A. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5); provides the 

resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations (FWWFP-DC-3); requires that projects and activities be designed and implemented to maintain 

refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species ... where they are 

likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10); and requires projects to include measures that minimize the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

593

negative impact of pesticides and other chemicals to species and their habitat, including chemicalfree buffers around bat roosts, riparian, or aquatic habitat (FW-WFP-G-4). 

Alternative B (modified) removes the language that is present in alternative A about 100- to 

300 acre stands of old growth. Instead plan language promotes natural levels of disturbance, 

frequent low-severity fires, old-growth structure distributed throughout the landscape, and 

uneven-aged forest with all age classes present, including old growth (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2, 3, 

6, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-2, 4, 7, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 4, G-2, 3). Guidelines 

require that old-growth forest attributes be protected from uncharacteristic natural disturbances; 

that development of old-growth conditions be encouraged in areas where it is lacking, and that 

preference for retention be given to pre-settlement trees (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1, 2, and 3). 

Collectively, these plan components would allow for the recruitment and sustainability of large 

trees, old trees, and old-growth structure over time, which provides roosting and foraging habitat 

for Allen’s lappet-browed bat and reduces susceptibility to uncharacteristic fire or uncharacteristic 

outbreaks of insect and disease. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends three wildernesses. Abineau and Strawberry contain 

suitable habitat for this species: Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire (347 acres) and Ponderosa Pine 

(97 acres). Recommended wilderness would be managed to maintain or enhance primitive and 

undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and unique features; to reduce evidence of 

modern human control and manipulations; and motor vehicle uses should only occur for limited 

administrative and permitted activities to be consistent with wilderness character (FW- RWildDC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This could enhance survival or reproduction through reduced 

disturbance. Recommended wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires, but 

could make them more challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire 

should be consistent with wilderness character, and depending on site-specific conditions, this 

may not always be possible. Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or 

prohibited (vehicle use only) if recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation 

could restrict the use of vegetative treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU.

The magnitude of the effect on species and habitat depends on what needs to be restored in these 

ERUs in recommended wilderness, what tools might be needed for restoration, and whether 

access in the areas adjacent to recommended wilderness areas is sufficient to allow for safe use of 

prescribed or managed fire if needed.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except for the following. 

It has the same effects as alternative A for designated old growth. 

Alternative C would have the least disturbance of any alternative because of the recommended 

wilderness areas, areas classified as not-suitable for recreational shooting, and management areas 

that emphasize reduced disturbance to wildlife habitat. 

With regard to recommended wilderness areas, alternative C has the same effects as alternative B 

(modified), except it recommends 13 wildernesses. Of those, Abineau, Barbershop, Davey’s, 

Deadwood Draw, East Clear Creek, Railroad Draw, Strawberry Crater, and Tin Can contain 

suitable habitat for this species: ponderosa pine (4,462 acres), Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire 

(283 acres) and Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire (347 acres). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

594

Alternative C is the only alternative that has areas designated as not suitable for recreational 

shooting. Recreational shooting refers to target shooting, not shooting for hunting. These areas 

include recommended and designated research natural areas, botanical and geological areas, and 

the following management areas: Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, 

Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, Second Chance, Walnut Canyon, Sedona 

Neighborwoods, and Long Valley. The designation of areas as not suitable for recreational 

shooting would reduce, but not eliminate disturbance for foraging or roosting bats. About 

27 percent of the forest could be designated as not suitable and these acres do not include areas 

that might already be excluded from recreational shooting by law. Areas designated as not 

suitable do not automatically become no recreational shooting areas. Subsequent environmental 

analysis (including public review and comment) and decisions need to be done to make this 

official. 

Alternative C is the only alternative with guidance to reduce motorized disturbance to wildlife 

habitat in certain management areas: Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, East Clear Creek, Hospital 

Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance. Desired 

conditions promote low-disturbance non-motorized recreational activities. Guidelines require no 

net increase in the area of motorized dispersed camping corridors; limitations on the roads that 

provide public motorized access; and a ban on large group recreation events and large 

commercial tours, except in support of research. They would reduce human disturbance in those 

areas where the area is not already protected by or in addition to existing designations such as 

wild and scenic rivers or inventoried roadless areas. This plan language would reduce but not 

eliminate disturbance to roosts because motorized administrative use, including permitted uses, 

would be allowed. This plan language could increase survival or reproduction, depending on 

proximity of roosts to potential disturbances or other site-specific circumstances. 

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except there are no recommended 

wildernesses, which could provide areas of reduced disturbance for cliff-dwelling species.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife and the analyses under the Coarse Filter: Habitat and 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide for the viability of 

Allen’s lappet-browed bats, although individuals may be impacted by management activities or 

permitted uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for Allen’s lappet-browed bats, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for viability of this species than alternative A, primarily 

because they contain plan components for cliffs and updated plan language for at-risk and rare 

species. Alternative A would provide for lower viability of this species than the other alternatives 

because it generally lacks direction for cliffs; however, it does have an overarching goal to 

maintain viability for wildlife (which includes plants) and fish species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

595

Arizona phlox

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Arizona phlox, a Forest Service sensitive species, is northern Arizona, 

where it occurs in Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties. The distribution of Arizona phlox 

was once thought to be limited to desert habitats, but recent surveys indicate is it more 

widespread than initially thought. The documented occurrences of Arizona phlox are fairly broad 

and scattered across several ERUs within the forest. 

Habitat

The occurrences of Arizona phlox are in the Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland, and Ponderosa Pine ERUs. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is a threat because this endemic species is only found in three counties in northern Arizona. 

Disturbance to plants is a concern because its populations may co-occur with management 

activities such as fire and vegetation treatments. 

Environmental Consequences

For additional information see Coarse Filter: Habitat and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section on At Risk Species and Disturbance to Plants. 

Table 94 summarizes the viability analysis for Arizona phlox. This table was developed using the 

analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information on 

the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that these species are limited by 

their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes 

the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

596

Table 94. Analysis summary for Arizona phlox

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood species 

is limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Arizona phlox DC Poor, away M-H Poor away M-H 

(Sensitive, 

Endemic) 

SDG Poor, away M-H Poor, slightly 

toward

M-H 

F Rank =F3* PJW Good, static L Good, static L 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term,

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective short 

term: M

Low objective long 

term: L-M 

High objective: L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term,

toward

High objective: 

Fair, trending 

toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Management Effect DC, SDG, PJW, and PP = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that 

have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, projectspecific best management practices should be developed. Finally, specific project design features 

would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when 

disturbed. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

597

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and once established would compete with this species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 

69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, FW Invas- G- 1, 2, -

3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). Additional information and analysis is 

discussed under the Non-native Species and Disease topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and 

Issues section. 

About 877 acres (1 percent) of Desert Communities, about 3,640 acres of Semi-desert Grassland 

(4 percent), about 5,200 acres (7 percent) of Pinyon Juniper Woodland, and 31,087 acres 

(4 percent) of Ponderosa pine are in designated wilderness. Plan language for designated 

wilderness provides additional protection to these species so would contribute to their viability in 

all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a 

natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities 

and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for 

wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values 

from being compromised. Ground disturbance would be reduced in the habitats for these species 

because motorized and mechanized use in wildernesses are not allowed (1987 Plan, pages 105, 

108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 94 shows that under alternative A, Desert Communities would remain in poor condition and 

trend away from desired conditions due to increased density of shrubs and understory species. 

Semi-desert Grasslands would also remain in poor condition and trend away from desired 

conditions due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and increased fragmentation from 

urbanization. Pinyon Juniper Woodland would remain in good condition with a static trend 

toward relative to desired conditions. 

Table 94 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. The distribution and diversity of understory vegetation are 

expected to increase where open stands are created, such as in areas treated for restoration. The 

shift to more open canopy under all alternatives would improve the abundance and vigor of 

Arizona phlox and other understory vegetation. 

As shown in table 94, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for this

species is low to moderate-high. This likelihood was derived by combining this species’ F Rank 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

598

of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for Desert Communities (high), Semidesert Grassland (high), Pinyon Juniper Woodland (low) and Ponderosa Pine ERUs (moderate in 

short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high 

treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within 

the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all habitats, 

which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives.

The reasons for this management effect rating are listed below. Alternative A provides outdated 

direction for Desert Communities and for a large portion of Semi-desert Grassland (in the Verde 

Valley MA). This outdated direction emphasizes range and forage improvement rather than 

composition, structure, and natural processes. Plan direction also emphasizes using methods such 

as soil scarification and broadcast seeding, which could facilitate the establishment of invasive 

plant species that compete with native species and can facilitate the spread of wildfire to which 

Desert Communities is not adapted. In the portions of Desert Communities and Semi-desert 

Grassland that overlaps the Verde Valley Management Area, the current forest plan emphasizes 

watershed condition and range management. Range management focuses on less than satisfactory 

range conditions, broadcast seeding following burning to increase production, and forage 

improvement. The direction for soil in this alternative focuses on achieving range improvement 

by identifying areas suitable for soil scarification and seeding of early seral species to a “more 

productive state” and to evaluate soils to determine the best species to promote stabilization (1987 

Plan, page 166, 168, 169). This direction does not move this ERU toward the ecologically based 

desired conditions in alternative B (modified). Scarification and seeding would disturb the soil 

surface and lead to increased erosion and lead to the establishment of non-native species like 

Lehmann love grass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) that competes with native plants like Arizona 

phlox and facilitates fire spread. However, vegetative treatments to improve these habitats would 

be reviewed for soil potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment. In the 

portion of these habitats that overlap the Savannah Management Area, the current plan promotes 

an open vegetation structure, using prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, and would increase 

the area occupied by grasses and forbs, while decreasing the area occupied by shrubs and trees in 

comparison to recent historic levels (1987 plan, page 206-50). This could improve the survival of 

Arizona phlox. 

The current forest plan contains outdated direction for managing desert soils. The direction for 

soil in MA 11 (Verde Valley Management Area) focuses on achieving range improvement by 

identifying areas suitable for soil scarification and seeding of early seral species to a “more 

productive state” and to evaluate soils to determine the best species to promote stabilization (1987 

Plan, page 169). This direction does not move this ERU toward the ecologically based desired 

conditions in alternative B (modified). Scarification would disturb the soil surface in the Verde 

Formation, a soil type in Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland and lead to increased 

erosion. Scarification and seeding of early seral species can introduce non-native species like 

Lehmann love grass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) that compete with native plants and facilitate fire 

spread. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

599

A plan component in the Verde Valley MA that recommends review of soil potential for 

revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment is positive however for areas containing the 

Verde Formation. Mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe impairment of soil 

productivity. Another positive plan component in this same MA would improve conditions on 

prioritized watersheds in unsatisfactory condition in the Verde Valley MA. This could move 

degraded areas toward desired conditions depending on the methods used (1987 plan, pages 168 

and 169). 

For Pinyon Juniper Woodland, this management effect rating is because alternative A also does 

not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three pinyon juniper types, which 

differ in composition, structure, and processes. There is one broad vegetation category of Pinyon 

Juniper. The different pinyon juniper types are differentiated on the basis of slope. Consequently, 

vegetation structure, and consequently habitat for these species, would not be equitably, or 

naturally, distributed across the landscape and managers lack specific guidance for the Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland ERU. The emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to 

achieve management objectives associated with range and watershed condition could maintain or 

improve habitat for these species (1987 Plan, pages 148 through 155; 162 through 165). 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in these ERUs, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, and 165) and the language to manage wildfires for resource 

objectives in wilderness impedes the use of this tool (1987 Plan, pages 111–112). This does not 

contribute to the viability of these species because this would limit the restoration of fire as a 

natural process in the wildland-urban interface and in wilderness, and canopy cover and shrub 

and tree density would be expected to increase in these areas. There would also be increased 

potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban interface and wilderness portions of these 

ERUs. This is particularly problematic in Semi-desert Grassland because the landownership 

pattern is intermixed between public and private ownerships. However, plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional protection to these species and would contribute to 

species viability in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and 

would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; 

management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent 

wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Desert Communities and Semi-Desert Grassland ERUs occur within the Verde Valley Botanical 

Area, which is within MA 17 (special areas) of this alternative. Plan components in alternative A 

are generally protective of the composition, structure, and function of the different vegetation 

types within botanical areas. For example, existing conditions and natural processes would be 

maintained; natural events would not be rehabilitated; and off-road driving would be prohibited 

(1987 Plan, page 194). Visitors should be limited in some areas, depending on carrying capacity 

and the uniqueness and ecological condition of these areas should be protected and maintained, 

including in allotment management plans. In addition, timber harvest and firewood cutting is 

prohibited (1987 Plan, page 195). Other protective measures include: Special-use authorizations 

that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be allowed; adjacent roads would be 

managed to prevent vehicular intrusion, and road access would be blocked and obliterated. Fire 

suppression tactics would minimize damage to character of the areas and prescribed fire with 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

600

planned ignitions may be used as a management tool provided it is a compatible use (1987 Plan, 

page 196). Collectively, these standards and guidelines mitigate the soil disturbance and plant 

damage that can result from these activities and maintain the conditions and characteristics for 

which this botanical area was established. Mechanized use in botanical areas is not explicitly 

addressed, resulting in vague direction to managers. It is unclear as to whether mechanized use is 

prohibited, is allowed only on trails, or is allowed on and off trail in these areas. Consequently, 

mechanized use could damage vegetation or contribute to accelerated soil erosion within 

localized areas in this ERU.

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape, while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. Gaps and more open areas would provide habitat for 

Arizona phlox. Ponderosa pine is mostly managed for Mexican spotted owls or northern 

goshawks under forestwide direction. Areas managed for Mexican spotted owl PACs and 

nest/roost characteristics tend to have higher canopy closure than areas outside of these areas.

Understory in these areas may be less abundant or vigorous due to the canopy closure. Areas 

outside of those managed for nest/roost characteristics and Mexican spotted owl habitat outside of 

PACs could have better habitat for Arizona phlox in areas where natural canopy gap processes 

occur and natural variation includes small openings. See 1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5. 

Ponderosa pine areas outside of Mexican spotted owl habitat is managed for northern goshawks.

Plan direction for northern goshawks would maintain habitat for these species because Ponderosa 

Pine would be managed for a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory); 

40 percent of the areas in young forest, seedling/sapling or grass/forb/shrub structure would not 

have canopy cover guidelines; and there would be more openings than in areas managed for 

denser stand conditions. See 1987 Plan, pages 65-7, 65-9, and 65-10. Additional management 

direction for ponderosa pine is in Management Area 3 (Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer less 

than 40 percent slope) and this direction has both positive and negative aspects. Direction to 

broadcast seed following burns using a high production multi-growing season species to attain a 

balanced composition of cool and warm season forage species could have a negative effect on 

these two species due to competition for nutrients and water with non-native species that could be 

a part of this seed mix. However, language to maintain open meadows in ponderosa pine, 

eliminate invading overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could improve habitat for this 

species. See 1987 Plan page 120. 

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs, and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 93, 94, 137. 

Alternative B (modified)

The condition and trend of Desert Communities, Pinyon Juniper Woodland, and Ponderosa Pine 

would be the same as for alternative A (table 94). Condition of Semi-desert Grassland would 

remain poor, same as alternative A, but the trend would improve to slightly toward desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 94, the likelihood that habitats on the forest would be a limiting factor for 

Arizona phlox ranges from low to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

601

were derived by combining the F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: Desert Communities (high), Semi-desert Grassland (high), Pinyon Juniper Woodland

(low), and Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low 

treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to 

moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 2 for all the habitats 

associated with Arizona phlox. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

Alternative B (modified) would provide clearer direction than alternative A for Desert 

Communities, allowing for a greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move toward desired 

conditions (FW-Eco-DC-1, FW-Eco-DC-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-1 to 3; FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-1 

to 4). Soil desired conditions would promote proper functioning soils, soil protection and 

stabilization, and nutrient cycling (FW-Soil-DC-1 to 4). Forestwide soil guidelines would avoid 

excessive ground disturbance, limit accelerated erosion, and minimize bringing more calcareous 

soil to the surface (FW-Soil-G-1 to 3). Bringing calcareous soil to the surface would limit soil 

plant nutrient availability. About 97 percent of Desert Communities ERU occurs within the Verde 

Valley Management Area. Desired conditions and guidelines would maintain or improve 

conditions in Desert Communities ERU by promoting watershed function and balancing 

recreational opportunities and dispersed recreation with resource protection and/or maintaining or 

moving toward other desired conditions (MA-VerdeV-DC-4 and MA-VerdeV-G-1 and 2). 

Table 94 shows that like alternative A, Semi-desert Grassland ERU would remain in poor 

condition, but unlike alternative A, this ERU would trend toward desired conditions due to plan 

objectives that would restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1). The plan objective 

would remove tree and shrub cover and create more open conditions that could favor these

species. This alternative distinguishes between the grassland habitats on the forest and containing 

explicit and updated direction on the composition, structure, and processes for this ERU (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-4, 8), compared to alternative A, which has a more forage-based approach. 

Alternative B (modified) also provides plan components to promote properly functioning and 

resilient ecosystems, promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

disturbances, and promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and 

properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC1, 2, 3, 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native 

species with varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support 

natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1 to 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). These 

plan components would maintain and improve habitat for Arizona phlox.

For Pinyon Juniper Woodland, alternative B (modified) distinguishes between the different 

Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides desired conditions, objectives, and guidance that 

are specific to the each type. Management direction would promote properly functioning 

ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic 

disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances; and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

602

specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5-

9; G-1-3, 5). This plan language would also be beneficial for Arizona phlox. 

For Ponderosa Pine, this rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological 

conditions and composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast 

to alternative A (Reynolds et al. 2013). Alternative B (modified) promotes an open uneven-aged 

structure similar to historic conditions, yet it also has provisions for denser areas such as on steep 

slopes and in canyons (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8, 13). The treatment objectives and desired 

conditions for the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the need for restoring the fire regime and canopy 

conditions toward desired conditions. Implementation of these objectives and removal of 

restrictions on use of wildfires with resource objectives would lead to more open stand conditions 

and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of habitat loss for 

species such as Arizona phlox. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not restrict the use of wildfires managed for 

resource objectives within the wildland-urban interface. Fire and vegetation management in the 

wildland-urban interface would favor low-intensity surface fires; higher frequency of disturbance 

than the natural disturbance regime from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource 

objectives, and/or vegetative treatments; more area of grass/forb/shrub vegetation or early seral 

vegetation, and more open conditions. Wildland-urban interface areas would still be within the 

range of desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 6, 7, and G-1). Although intended to reduce the 

risk of wildfire to surrounding communities and values-at-risk, conditions and activities in the 

wildland-urban interface could have the positive effect of maintaining habitat for Arizona phlox 

by stimulating flowering, seed release, germination, removing competitors, or causing a 

temporary increase in nutrient availability (Satterthwaite et al. 2002). Areas with increased 

disturbance from management activities could degrade habitat through accelerated soil erosion, 

soil compaction, depletion of the seedbank in the soil, and establishment of non-native species 

could out-compete this species (Cione et al. 2002). Plants could respond negatively or positively 

to more frequent fire depending on timing (when flowering, forming seed, actively growing, or 

when carbohydrate reserves are relatively low), frequency, severity, duration, and extent of 

burning and how these factors interface with plant morphology or other existing conditions like 

drought (DeBano et al. 1998). Furthermore, more frequent low-severity ground fires are not the 

natural fire regime for Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, or Pinyon Juniper Woodland,

so composition and structure of these ERUs in wildland-urban interface could shift. The effect of 

these altered conditions in the wildland-urban interface on these species is dependent on the sitespecific and species-specific interaction of the above-mentioned possible effects and conditions. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses speciesspecific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution: 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) also promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and 

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). Additional information and analysis 

is discussed under the At Risk topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

603

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

by adding language so roads and recreational activities and locations are managed to move 

toward desired conditions for other resources; so unneeded roads are decommissioned, and so 

temporary roads are naturalized in a timely manner (FW-RdsFac-G-1, 6, 8 and FW-Rec-All-G-1). 

A Roads and Facilities desired condition may lead to temporary increases in roads to allow for 

management activities including restoration treatments and prescribed burning (FW-RdsFac-DC3). These temporary roads could crush plants, degrade habitat, contribute to soil loss, or increase 

the risk of non-native plant establishment. However, these activities are needed to conduct 

vegetative treatments that would reduce departure from desired conditions in ERUs and reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire. These treatments would generally open tree canopy and would 

improve the distribution and abundance of herbaceous understory, including habitat for rare 

plants. Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Disturbance (plants) topic in 

the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

There are 132 acres (less than 1 percent) of Semi-desert Grassland, 1,467 acres (2 percent) of 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland, and 97 acres (less than 1 percent) of Ponderosa Pine in recommended 

wilderness in this alternative. Recommended wilderness would be managed to maintain or 

enhance primitive and undeveloped characteristics; to preserve native species and unique 

features; to reduce evidence of modern human control and manipulations; and motor vehicle uses 

should only occur for limited administrative and permitted activities to be consistent with 

wilderness character (FW- RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This would protect habitat by 

reducing some ground disturbance that could occur as result of management activities or 

permitted uses. Recommended wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires, 

but could make them more challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire 

should be consistent with wilderness character and depending on site-specific conditions, this 

may not always be possible. Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or 

prohibited (vehicle use) if recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation could 

restrict the use of vegetative treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU. The 

magnitude of the effect on species and their habitat depends on what needs to be restored in these 

ERUs in recommended wilderness, what tools might be needed for restoration, and whether 

access in the areas adjacent to recommended wilderness areas is sufficient to allow for safe use of 

prescribed or managed fire if needed.

Unlike alternative A, mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable except 

mechanized travel would be suitable on routes designated for mechanized travel. This plan 

language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism (see Chapter 4 

Recreation and Transportation Suitability). Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be 

done for this direction to take effect. This suitability recommendation is considered to be 

protective of the habitat because impacts to the plant species would be evaluated during the 

environmental analysis and impacts would be limited to the trail prism. This direction applies to 

the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,029 acres of Desert Communities, 162 acres of Semi-desert 

Grassland) and the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (178 acres of 

Desert Communities, 575 acres of Semi-desert Grassland). Currently, only the Verde Valley 

Botanical Area has designated trails whereas there are none in the proposed Cottonwood Basin 

Geological and Botanical Area. This alternative has specific guidance restricting travel to foot 

traffic within the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area (SA-RNABotGeo-G-7). 

Designation of this area would preserve this unique botanical community and help protect the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

604

area from such threats as illegal off-road vehicle use. This guidance would remove vehicle travel 

and would better protect the unique rock formations and plants occurring in this area. 

Alternative C

The effects to these species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except for the following. The effects to these species under alternative C would be the same as 

alternative B (modified) except there would be 949 acres of Desert Communities (2 percent), 

12,041 acres of Semi-desert Grassland (13 percent), 13,600 acres of Pinyon Juniper Woodland

(18 percent), and 1,720 acres (less than 1 percent) of Ponderosa Pine in recommended wilderness. 

In alternative C, mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable, even on 

designated routes. This plan language is intended to limit soil and vegetation impacts to the trail 

prism. Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be done for this direction to take effect. 

This suitability recommendation is considered to be the most protective of the special features 

including plants and their habitat because impacts to the plant species would be evaluated during 

the environmental analysis. As in alternative B (modified), this direction applies to the Verde 

Valley Botanical Area and the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area. 

Alternative D

The effects to these species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified) 

except there is no recommended wilderness and only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area 

would be designated (only 185 acres of Semi-desert Grassland).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plant and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Arizona phlox, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities 

or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for 

Arizona phlox, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A. These alternatives include 

updated plan language for all habitats, geological and botanical areas, disturbance, and at-risk and 

rare species. Alternative C would contribute more to the viability of this species due to having 

more recommended wilderness and no mechanized use in botanical and geological areas.

Arizona sneezeweed

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Arizona sneezeweed, a Forest Service sensitive species, is northern 

Arizona. Arizona sneezeweed ranges from the Mormon Lake area southeastward to the White 

Mountains area.

Habitat

The occurrences of Arizona sneezeweed are associated with the montane portion of

Montane/Subalpine Grassland and Ponderosa Pine ERUs, wetlands, and springs in areas from 

Mormon Lake southward. These are generally in openings in the forest. This endemic species 

may also be found in ephemeral drainages and near ponds and earthen stock tanks. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

605

Risk Factors

Primary threats are rarity, invasive plant species, and disturbance. 

Arizona sneezeweed is considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known, populations are relatively small, and it has a restricted distribution. Consequently, 

individuals and populations are vulnerable to stochastic events and to disturbance from 

management activities, such as vegetation treatments, fire, and road work, which could damage or 

remove plants.

Non-native invasive plants are a concern because some populations co-occur with leafy spurge, 

which is an extremely aggressive non-native invasive plant that is a high priority for treatment. 

Leafy spurge competes for water and nutrients with Arizona sneezeweed and can negatively 

impact survival or reproduction. 

Environmental Consequences

For additional information see Coarse Filter: Habitat and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section on At Risk Species, Non-native or Invasive Species, and Disturbance to Plants. 

Table 95 summarizes the viability analysis for Arizona sneezeweed. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that Arizona 

sneezeweed is limited by habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

606

Table 95. Analysis summary for Arizona sneezeweed

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Arizona 

sneezeweed

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = F2*

MSG Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, Away

Short term: M

Long term: M-H 

Good, toward M 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair 

at long term, 

toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M-H 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor at short term 

then Fair at long 

term, toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M-H 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Wetlands By acres: 

good**, toward

M-H Good**, toward M-H 

Springs Fair***, slowly 

toward

H Fair***, slowly 

toward

H 

Management Effect MSG, PP and Wetlands = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, maintenance, 

and restoration to some 

occurrences. 

Springs = 4: Decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management 

or lack of management that result 

from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or may 

be few. Where applicable, plan 

components address few 

identified fine filter species threats 

and needs

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

*F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat. ** Used “fair” value for likelihood of 

species limitation rating for springs.

**For analysis of these species, wetland condition and trend are based on total acres of wetlands, which has the effect of 

giving greater weight to larger wetlands. The condition and trend is fair and slowly toward desired conditions when the 

number of individual wetlands is considered, instead of total wetland acres.

***For analysis of these species, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or 

good condition depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

607

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Non-native invasive plants are a particular risk to this species especially in Brolliar Park. Brolliar 

Park is a montane grassland that contains large groups of Arizona sneezeweed and is also one of 

the locations of leafy spurge, one of the priority non-native invasive plants on the forest. 

Treatment of this invasive species has been ongoing for many years and will continue under all 

alternatives. The presence of this non-native weed and its associated treatment are sources of 

added disturbance at this site. Mitigations for disturbance from treatment are implemented to the 

extent possible yet disturbance is necessary to achieve control of leafy spurge in this area and 

across the forest. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and once established could compete with Arizona sneezeweed 

for water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of 

invasive plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best 

management practices, among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce 

the threat of invasive plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control 

measures in project planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners 

(1987 Plan, pages 23, 69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116; FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, 

FW-Invas G-1, 2, 3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-3, FW-GrazMgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8, FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More detailed analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section called Non-native Species and Disease. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that 

have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, projectspecific best management practices should be developed. Finally, specific project design features 

would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when 

disturbed. 

Alternative A

Table 95 shows that Montane/Subalpine Grassland would remain in good condition in the short 

term, but move to fair condition in the long term, and continue trending away from desired 

conditions. 

The table also reflects that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 

100,000 acres prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short 

term, then improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. 

The improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

608

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 

Wetlands would be in good condition and trend toward desired conditions. Springs would 

generally be in fair condition with a trend slowly toward desired conditions, but could vary from 

good condition to poor condition depending on access, protection, and the degree of development 

of the individual spring.

As shown in table 95, the likelihood that Arizona sneezeweed would be limited by its habitat on 

the forest is moderate to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining Arizona sneezeweed’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each habitat: Montane/Subalpine Grassland (low in the short term, moderate in the long term), 

Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), wetlands (moderate considering the total 

acres of wetlands), and springs (high) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland, Ponderosa Pine, and wetlands, which means that plan components 

in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in 

the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. 

The management effect for springs is classified as a 4, which means that a decline in habitat 

quality could occur as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

Alternative A does not distinguish between the different grassland types, which differ in terms of 

precipitation patterns, composition, soil types, elevation, and structure. In the older sections of the 

current plan, guidance for composition is focused on a balanced composition of cool and warm 

season grasses. More recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Area, have a more ecological approach to composition by promoting diverse healthy 

populations of native plants and animals with a natural variety of plant species, age classes, and 

structures, but this guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. 

Portions of alternative A provide outdated direction for ponderosa pine. This outdated direction 

emphasizes timber production for most of the ponderosa pine forest (MA 3) rather than 

composition, structure, and natural processes as in the desired conditions. Fire is mentioned in the 

context of wildfires with acknowledgement of natural regeneration. 

Alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand conditions across the landscape, 

while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. 

Uneven-aged management is emphasized and standard prescription guidelines are provided for 

ponderosa pine under various scenarios but stocking rates and tree densities supported by 

alternative A are above the rates and densities supported by historic reconstructions so alternative 

A supports higher tree densities than desired and leads to increased potentials for uncharacteristic 

fire and insect and disease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

609

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging.

Alternative A does not distinguish between the various riparian types differentiated in alternative 

B (modified), and lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, and function. In 

addition, this alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to 

the other alternatives. Plan language for wetlands is outdated and does not include current science 

about vegetative condition and natural disturbances. It lacks comprehensive desired conditions for 

composition, structure, and function of wetlands. Alternative A does not distinguish between the 

various riparian types differentiated in alternative B (modified) and lacks plan components 

relative to composition, structure, and function. In addition, this alternative has the least potential 

for improvement to riparian condition compared to the other alternatives. 

Springs are important habitat for Arizona sneezeweed. Guidance for springs in alternative A is 

included in the Riparian section of the plan (MA 12 Riparian and Open Water) with no direction 

to maintain springs in their natural conditions. This direction is outdated and inadequate to protect 

the specialized spring habitat needed by Arizona sneezeweed.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 95 shows that condition and trend for Montane/Subalpine Grassland would improve to 

good with a trend toward desired condition under alternative B (modified). Like alternative A, 

Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the 

short term under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed 

fire). However, in the short term under the high vegetation treatment objectives (260,050 acres 

mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long term under both the low and high 

vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to fair and trend toward desired 

conditions. 

Wetlands would have good condition and a trend toward desired condition, the same as 

alternative A. Springs would remain in the same condition as in alternative A with a static trend 

relative to desired conditions.

As shown in table 95, the likelihood that Arizona sneezeweed would be limited by its habitat on 

the forest is moderate to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining Arizona sneezeweed’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each habitat: Montane/Subalpine Grassland (Low), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term 

and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), wetlands (moderate considering the total acres of wetlands), and springs (high) (table 

9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all habitats. This 

means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. This rating is due to these alternatives containing explicit and 

updated direction for montane/subalpine grasslands, ponderosa pine, wetlands and springs. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

610

Rarity is a risk for these species. Alternative B (modified) has additional components that better 

provide for rare species than alternative A. Desired conditions in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant 

section includes language for species that are endemic or have restricted distribution. The plan 

language would provide for the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity 

and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed 

and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region 

sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with 

restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). This is further discussed 

in the At Risk section under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics. 

Alternative B (modified) distinguishes between different grassland types on the forest and 

provides updated and improved plan direction that would guide future projects. Alternative B 

(modified) provides plan components to promote properly functioning and resilient ecosystems, 

promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and 

promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems, thereby, furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, FWTerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with 

varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1 through 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). These plan 

components provide better direction for the grassland habitats and species that use them, 

including Arizona sneezeweed.

In alternative B (modified), treatment objectives in the Ponderosa Pine ERU would create more 

open conditions that favor this species and facilitate a frequent low-severity fire regime to which 

this species is adapted. Implementation of plan objectives and removal of restrictions on the use 

of wildfires with resource objectives in wildland-urban interface and in wilderness would also 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape and benefit habitat for this species. This 

plan language could facilitate the use of prescribed fire or wildfire for restoration or fuels 

reduction however these activities would still need to maintain wilderness characteristics and 

comply with regulations associated with wilderness. 

Plan components for wetlands and springs are updated in alternative B (modified). Desired 

conditions and guidelines support wetland composition, structure, and function, connectivity 

between uplands and aquatic and riparian areas, and the maintenance of habitat for species (FWRip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2, FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 3, 5 and G-2, 3, FW-WFP-DC-6). In addition, riparian 

functional condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for 

vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC1, 2, FW-Water-G-2, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic management zone 

guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3, Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) 

(USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant section also 

contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by promoting properly 

functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological components to meet the 

needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 

For alternative B (modified) the forestwide desired conditions for springs (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1 and 

5) provide for proper function for the biotic and abiotic factors needed by Arizona sneezeweed. 

These desired conditions provide better guidance for the rare, but important habitats for species 

such as Arizona sneezeweed that inhabit them. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

611

There is no habitat for this species in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative, 

and therefore, no impact.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). There is no habitat for this species in any of 

the wildernesses recommended in this alternative, and therefore, no impact.

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Arizona sneezeweed, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for Arizona sneezeweed, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D provide better protection for Arizona sneezeweed than alternative A, 

primarily because guidance for springs, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, and wetlands is outdated 

or insufficient for managers in alternative A. The shift in emphasis from timber production to 

ecosystem resiliency in ponderosa pine would better provide for the viability for this species 

under alternatives B (modified), C and D. Plan direction that defines and provides guidance for 

grasslands, wetlands and springs would also contribute to the viability of this species. 

Arizona sunflower

Affected Environment 

Arizona sunflower is a Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Distribution

Arizona sunflower is an herbaceous perennial with long creeping roots that function like 

rhizomes. Its habitat and range include dry, frequently sandy soil, west central New Mexico to 

east central Arizona (Heiser et al. 1969). There is only one documented location on Coconino NF 

from the east side of Soldier Lake on Anderson Mesa (Frost 1945), but there may be other 

undetected locations.

Habitat

The documented location of this species on the Coconino NF is in the Pinyon Juniper Woodland 

ERU.

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to Arizona sunflower due to its restricted distribution. It is considered 

to be rare and/or at-risk because there is only one occurrence on the forest and it may be 

vulnerable to stochastic events. 

Environmental Consequences

For additional information see Coarse Filter: Habitat and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section on At-risk Species. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

612

Table 96 summarizes the viability analysis for Arizona sunflower. This table was developed using 

the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information 

on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species is limited by 

habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.

Table 96. Analysis summary for Arizona sunflower

Alternative A Alternatives B (mod), C, and 

D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Arizona 

sunflower 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1*

PJW Good, static M Good, static M 

Management Effect 3 = Plan components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

2 = Plan components maintain or 

improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Table 96 shows that Pinyon Juniper Woodland would be in good condition with a static trend 

relative to desired conditions in all alternatives. The likelihood that this species would be limited 

by its habitat is moderate. 

Arizona sunflower is considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there is only one population on 

the forest and it may be vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives 

contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and 

improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, 

pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 

206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 

206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk 

Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

613

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, could compete with this species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (pages 23, 69, 70, 182, 

206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, FW Invas G 1-3, FW-InvasMgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-3, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FWRec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More detailed 

analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic section called Non-native Species and 

Disease.

Alternative A

Table 96 shows that under alternative A Pinyon Juniper Woodland would remain in good 

condition with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

As shown in table 96, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

Arizona sunflower is moderate. This likelihood was derived by combining this species’ F Rank of 

F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for Pinyon Juniper Woodland (low) (table 9 in 

volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

Table 96 shows that the management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan 

language in terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 

for Pinyon Juniper Woodland, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or 

improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus 

contribute less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily because 

alternative A does not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three pinyon 

juniper types, which differ from each other in composition, structure, and processes. There is one 

broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper and plan direction varies by slope. Consequently, 

vegetation structure would not be equitably distributed across the landscape. As a result, Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland’s unique composition and structure is not addressed in this alternative. Under 

alternative A, the habitat for Arizona sunflower is within Management Area 7 (Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland less than 40 percent slope). This management area emphasizes fuel wood, watershed, 

grazing and wildlife, and has no specific direction for rare species. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 96 shows that the Pinyon Juniper Woodland would have the same condition and trend as 

alternative A. Table 96 also shows that the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting 

factor for Arizona sunflower is moderate, the same as alternative A. This likelihood was derived 

by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered 

to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for Pinyon Juniper 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

614

Woodland. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

Rarity is a risk for this species. Alternative B (modified) has additional components that better 

provide for rare species than alternative A. Desired conditions in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant 

section includes language for species that are endemic or have restricted distribution. The plan 

language would provide for the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity 

and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed 

and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region 

sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with 

restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). This is further discussed 

in the At-risk section under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics.

In addition to the guidance in the Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERU, Arizona sunflower is in the 

Anderson Mesa MA in alternative B (modified). This MA is designed to highlight wildlife-based 

recreation. It provides solitude for activities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing as well 

as hiking, mountain biking, motorized recreation, rock climbing, and horseback riding. This 

alternative includes a desired condition for roads and trails in the Anderson Mesa MA to not be 

dominant features on the landscape (MA-AMesa-DC-1). This additional guidance may provide 

added protection to the habitat of Arizona sunflower as compared to alternative A.

Table 96 summarizes and compares the analyses for Arizona sunflower. This table shows that 

under alternative B (modified), Pinyon Juniper Woodland would remain in good condition and 

would remain static. The likelihood that Arizona sunflower would be limited by its habitat on the 

forest is moderate for Pinyon Juniper Woodland. This likelihood was derived by combining this 

species’ F Ranks of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for the ERU which is 

Low (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural 

range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

Alternative C

The effects under alternative C would be similar to alternative B (modified). Alternative C would 

provide slightly more protection, because in addition to the Anderson Mesa MA desired condition 

discussed above, alternative C includes a guideline to manage road densities in the Anderson 

Mesa MA to not exceed an average of 1 mile of road per square mile (Appendix F, MA-AMesaG-3). The reduced road density could be beneficial to rare species such as Arizona sunflower by 

reducing the levels of disturbance and soil erosion that are associated with roads. 

Alternative D

The effects of alternative D are similar to alternative B (modified). 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would maintain 

the viability of Arizona sunflower, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for Arizona sunflower, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D provide a higher level of protection than alternative A, primarily because the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

615

guidance for Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERU is absent in alternative A, and these alternatives 

better address species with restricted distributions. Components that protect the Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland ERU also protect the habitat of Arizona sunflower. The desired condition for reduced 

road densities in the Anderson Mesa Management Area also provide protection. 

Black dropseed

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of black dropseed, classified as an Other planning species, is central 

Arizona. 

Habitat

Black dropseed occurs in the Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Ponderosa Pine ERUs. It grows on 

rocky slopes and in dry meadows of open yellow pine and oak-pine forests and pinyon juniper 

woodlands. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to this endemic species due to its restricted distribution. Disturbance to 

plants is also a risk from management activities, such as vegetation treatments, fire, and road 

work.

Environmental Consequences

For additional information see Coarse Filter: Habitat and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section on At-risk Species. 

Table 97 summarizes the viability analysis for black dropseed. This table was developed using the 

analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information on 

the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species is limited by 

habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

616

Table 97. Analysis summary for black dropseed 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Black dropseed

(Other) 

F Rank =F3* 

GBG Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

Short term: L 

Long term: M

Low and high 

objectives: Good, 

static

L 

MSG Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, Away

Short term: M

Long term: M

Good, toward L 

PJES Fair, away L-M Fair, away L-M 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

L-M Low and high 

objectives: Fair,

toward at short 

term then Fair, 

slowly away at 

long term

L-M 

PP Low objective: 

Poor at short 

term then Fair at 

long term, 

toward

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor at short term 

then Fair at long 

term, toward 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Management Effect All ERUs = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

All ERUs = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

This species is considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations known and 

they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species 

viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 

95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 

206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; 

FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant 

Issues and Topics section above for more information. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

617

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, could compete with native plants for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 

69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116; FW-Invas-DC-1, 2, 3, FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3, FWInvas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-3, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8, 

FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More 

detailed analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic section called Non-native Species 

and Disease. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils 

(such as the Verde Formation) that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices should be developed. 

Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater 

than 40 percent grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where 

soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. This will mitigate impacts to these desert plants 

where implemented.

Black dropseed occurs in the West Clear Creek Wilderness. Plan language for designated 

wilderness provides additional protection to this species so would contribute to the viability of 

this species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would 

support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management 

activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions 

for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness 

values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SAWild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 97 shows that under alternative A, Great Basin Grassland would initially remain in good 

condition but would trend away from desired condition in the short term as trees and shrubs 

encroach from the periphery due to lack of fire in adjacent ERUs. In the long term, this Great 

Basin Grassland would be in fair condition and continue trending away from desired conditions. 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland remains in good condition in the short term, but moves to fair 

condition in the long term, and continues to trend away from desired condition as trees and shrubs 

encroach from the periphery due to lack of fire in adjacent ERUs. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition and trend away from desired 

conditions because the fire return interval is also trending away, tree and shrub regeneration 

would increase. Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

618

with black dropseed and facilitate a higher fire severity than this species had evolved with thereby 

degrading its habitat. 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain in fair condition, trending toward in the short term due 

to expected mechanical treatments and burning using wildfire for resource objectives. However, 

the trend for Pinyon Juniper with Grass is expected to move away from desired condition over 

time because there are currently more trees per acre and greater cover due to fire exclusion and 

weather patterns which have favored tree germination and establishment. The expected treatment 

level is insufficient to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. As a 

result, understory abundance and diversity has decreased, decreasing the potential for surface 

fires. Fire exclusion has also altered structural stage; stand age; canopy cover; mosaic pattern; 

fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. 

Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition in the short term at the low treatment objectives 

(50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres prescribed burn), then improve to fair condition and 

trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The improved vegetation structure and 

composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the high treatment objectives 

(260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation quality would improve 

faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because more acres would be treated. It 

would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the short and long term. 

As shown in table 97, the likelihood that black dropseed would be limited by its habitat on the 

forest is low to moderate depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by combining 

the F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: Great Basin 

Grassland (low in short term, moderate in long term), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (lowmoderate), Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term 

and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), and Montane/Subalpine Grassland (low in the short term, moderate in the long term) 

(table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 97 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all 

habitats, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability 

of this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A does not 

distinguish between the different grassland types which differ from each other in terms of 

precipitation patterns, composition, soil types, elevation, and structure. In the older sections of the 

current plan, guidance for composition is focused on a balanced composition of cool and warm 

season grasses. More recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Area, have a more ecological approach to composition by promoting diverse healthy 

populations of native plants and animals with a natural variety of plant species, age classes, and 

structures but this guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. 

Alternative A does not distinguish between the pinyon juniper types. It lacks plan components 

relative to composition, structure, and function for each of these unique habitats. Under the 

current management, the density and cover of trees in both pinyon juniper ERUs would continue 

to increase, resulting in the decrease of understory abundance and diversity and degradation of 

habitat for this species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

619

Alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand conditions across the landscape 

(1987 Plan, page 65-3), while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in irregular tree 

groups and canopy gaps (1987 Plan, page 65-4). Additional specific guidance provides for tree 

density ranging from 120 to 325 trees per acre, depending on site class and management 

objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016c, page 121). A literature review of early historical 

inventories and reconstructions of ponderosa pine recently indicated that the historic range of 

variation for ponderosa pine forests on basalt soils in the Coconino NF averages between 15 and 

60 trees per acre (Reynolds et al. 2013). These densities (even if adding additional understory 

trees that are often missed in reconstructions) are still far below the low end of the stocking range 

provided in the 1987 plan. Consequently, alternative A promotes higher tree densities than 

desired. These higher tree densities decrease the amount of openness and growing space for 

understory species such as black dropseed. 

Plan language that limits the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives in wilderness and 

in wildland-urban interface would not be beneficial for many species because Ponderosa Pine is a 

fire-adapted ecosystem. This language eliminates one management tool that could maintain 

openness that would favor vegetation that prefers more open conditions and that would favor 

restoration of the historic fire regime in these areas. See Vegetation and Fire in volume I of the 

FEIS for more detail. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 97 shows that Great Basin Grassland ERU would be in good condition and the trend would 

improve to static relative to desired condition due to a plan objective that would restore or 

improve 10,800 to 12,400 acres of Great Basin Grassland during each 10-year period over the life 

of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2). 

The condition and trend of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU would be good with a trend 

toward desired conditions due to a plan objective that would restore or improve 7,600 to 

11,400 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands during each 10-year period over the life of the 

plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-3). These plan objectives would be expected to remove tree and 

shrub cover and create more open conditions and suitable habitat for this species. 

The condition and trend for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would not differ from alternative A, 

fair with a trend away from desired conditions. The condition of Pinyon Juniper with Grass would

remain fair, but the trend would be toward desired conditions in the short term, then trend slowly 

away from desired conditions in the long term, because the treatment levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O1, 2) are not sufficient to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to alternative A, remaining in poor condition with a trend 

toward desired conditions in the short term under low treatment objectives (50,000 acres 

mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). However, in the short term under the high vegetation 

treatment objectives (260,050 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed fire) and in the long 

term under both the low and high vegetation treatment objectives, the condition would improve to 

fair and trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 97, the likelihood that black dropseed would be limited by its habitat on the 

forest is low to moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by combining 

this species F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Great 

Basin Grassland (low), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate), Pinyon Juniper with 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

620

Grass (low-moderate), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for 

low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), and Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the 

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effects are classified as a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

This rating is due to this alternative distinguishing between the grassland habitats on the forest 

and containing explicit and updated direction on the composition, structure, and processes for 

these ERUs (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1, 4, 6, and 8), compared to alternative A, which has a 

more forage-based approach. There is additional guidance on when to use fire as a management 

tool in GBG, and protection and improvement of grasslands using soil aeration, fencing, 

improved grazing strategies, and location of roads or constructed waters. This would promote 

functional habitat and grassland composition, structure, and productivity (FW-TerrERU-G-1, 2). 

Alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological conditions and composition, structure, and 

function of this ERU using current science, in contrast to alternative A (Reynolds et al. 2013). 

In alternative B (modified), increased treatment objectives in the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the 

need for ecological restoration that addresses the shift in canopy conditions away from desired 

conditions and the departure the historic fire regime. Reduction of canopy and high stocking 

levels in ponderosa pine stands would free up more resources for understory plants including 

black dropseed. Implementation of desired conditions for ponderosa pine and removal of 

restrictions on use of wildfires with resource objectives would lead to more open stand conditions 

and would also reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of 

habitat loss for all species including black dropseed. 

Under the updated plan direction, there is an overall emphasis on ecological conditions, which 

would support a variety of species; properly functioning ecosystems, and restoration of desired 

disturbance regimes (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2). This direction would lead to decreases in tree and shrub 

establishment and a corresponding increase in the distribution and abundance of herbaceous 

species is anticipated in all of these ERUs primarily due to increased treatment levels. Alternative 

B (modified) provides plan components to promote properly functioning and resilient ecosystems, 

promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and 

promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, FWTerrERU-All-DC-2). 

ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in 

natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERUGrass-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-1, 3, 4, 8, 9, G-1 and 2). There is additional 

guidance on when to use fire as a management tool in Great Basin Grassland, and protection and 

improvement of grasslands using soil aeration, fencing, improved grazing strategies, and location 

of roads or constructed waters. This would promote functional habitat and grassland composition, 

structure, and productivity (FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-1, 2).These plan components provide better 

direction for the grassland habitats and species that use them, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

621

Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity and endemic species like black 

dropseed better than alternative A. In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has 

language that better addresses species specific threats and better provides for habitat for species 

with restricted ranges and distribution. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat 

conditions that would provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFPDC-5) and would provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity 

and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed 

and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region 

sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with 

restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

by reducing the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances and disturbance from recreational use 

(FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3; FW-Rec-All-G-1, 2; FW-Rec-Disp-DC-3, G-1; FW-Rec-Trails DC- 3, 11, 

G-1 and 3). Although all alternatives provide mitigations for effects to this species from 

management actions, the mitigations are stronger in alternative B (modified). Disturbance to 

Plants is further addressed in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above.

There are 6,668 acres of potential habitat in recommended wilderness. Desired conditions would 

be beneficial for this species and its habitat because of the emphasis on undeveloped 

characteristics, ecological characteristics, native species, and little evidence of human presence or 

occupation (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, and 5). Black dropseed is an endemic species, but widespread 

throughout its narrow range, so it may be present in one or more of these areas. 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except there are about 56,115 acres 

of potential habitat in recommended wilderness. Black dropseed is an endemic species, but 

widespread throughout its narrow range, so it may be present in one or more of these areas.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there is no recommended 

wilderness.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of black dropseed, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific

activities or uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this 

species than alternative A, primarily because they contain updated plan components for grassland 

and pinyon juniper habitats, and updated plan language related to disturbances to plants. While 

alternative A has language that addresses rare and at-risk species, plan language in the remaining 

alternatives is updated, has wider applicability, addresses endemic species, and contributes more 

to the viability of at-risk and rare species than alternative A.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

622

California floater

Affected Environment 

The California floater (Forest Service sensitive species) is a freshwater mussel with a parasitic 

larval phase that is dependent on native fish hosts. 

Distribution

California floater is believed to have been present historically on the Coconino NF in the Beaver 

Creek, Cherry Creek-Verde River, Fossil Creek-Verde River, Grindstone Wash-Verde River, 

Lower Clear Creek, Oak Creek, Sycamore Creek, Upper Clear Creek, and West Clear Creek 5th 

HUC watersheds (potential of 287.8 perennial stream miles). There are presently no known extant 

populations on the Coconino NF (AZGFD 2012). 

Habitat

California floaters are associated with springs, streams, and all three riparian forest types where 

they occur. They prefer shallow areas of clean, clear lakes, ponds and large rivers. It also prefers 

lower elevations and soft, silty substrate to burrow into. The life cycle of California floater 

includes a parasitic larval stage during which it is dependent upon a host fish, usually a member 

of the Gila genus, for food and dispersal. The adult and juvenile phases are a sedentary, filterfeeders (AZGFD 2012). 

Risks

Risk factors for California floater include predation by non-native fish and introduced or invasive 

crayfish, and likely reduced populations of native fish larval hosts.

Environmental Consequences

Since this species has been extirpated from the Coconino NF, and there are no plans for 

reintroductions, there will be no effects to the California floater from implementation of any of 

the alternatives. If California floater are reintroduced sometime in the future, a biological 

evaluation will be completed. 

Findings

Implementation of plan components under all alternatives would provide for the viability of 

California floater, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or uses, if it is 

re-established on the forest. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward 

Federal listing for this Forest Service sensitive species. This species is considered extirpated from 

the Coconino NF, with last known evidence found in 1973 (Stevens and Ledbetter 2014). It has 

an F-Rank of FH (occurred on the forest historically, but no known extant populations). 

Common black hawk

Affected Environment 

Common black hawks are classified as an Other planning species.

Distribution

On the Coconino NF, the common black hawk has been observed nesting along all main perennial 

streams and a few minor perennial streams below the rim. Streams where nesting has been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

623

observed include Verde River, Sycamore Creek, Oak Creek, Spring Creek, Dry Beaver Creek, 

Red Tank Draw, Wet Beaver Creek, Walker Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek. There are 

about 31 known occupied nest sites on the forest. 

Habitat

Common black hawks are associated with Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, and 

Montane Willow riparian forest types. They mostly nest in low-elevation cottonwood/sycamore 

riparian zones that are supported by a permanent flowing stream. 

Additional information on these associated ERUs can be found above in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section.

Risk Factors

The primary threat is that human disturbance can disrupt breeding and raising young that could 

result in failed reproduction or fewer young. The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section 

above has more detail about Disturbance. For some individuals, nesting success is lower in areas 

where there are crayfish and a lack of native prey. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 98 summarizes the viability analysis for common black hawks. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

624

Table 98. Analysis summary for common black hawks

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Common black 

hawk (Other)

CWRF Fair, slowly toward M Good, slowly 

toward

L-M 

F Rank = F4* MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

L-M Good, slowly 

toward

L-M 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

L-M Good, slowly 

toward

L-M 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

* F4 = Common on the forest within its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

As described in the Coarse Filter:Habitat section, all alternatives would employ filter strips or 

aquatic management zones to reduce sedimentation, soil compaction, and loss of cover from 

ground-disturbing activities; would maintain and procure instream flow water rights; would 

address the threat of invasive plants; and would allow for installation of stream barriers to 

separate native from non-native or invasive species. 

Alternative A

Table 98 shows that under alternative A, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in 

fair condition and have a slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow, some 

portions of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, and Spring Creek, would be static due to high 

recreation or private land, such as the area around Childs, Spring Creek, Dry Beaver Creek, and 

private lands. 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. Static trends would 

be associated with the Oak Creek 5th code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. The trend 

would be static or moving slowly toward desired conditions except in the Beaver Creek, West 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

625

Clear Creek and Oak Creek 5th code HUCs and portions of Fossil Creek where recreation 

impacts are high. Areas of private land would remain static as well. 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition with a majority of the habitat 

either static or trending slowly toward desired conditions, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code 

HUC is trending toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 98, the likelihood that common black hawks would be limited by their habitat 

on the forest is low-moderate to moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the common black hawk’s F Rank of F4 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each habitat: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), and Montane Willow Riparian Forest

(moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the 

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 98 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve 

protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less 

to the viability of this species than the other alternatives.

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests and streamcourses, because it has a 

focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing damage to riparian vegetation, 

streambanks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as 

possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-8, 172, and 206-8). Other protective language includes the 

following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as 

utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of 

impact to riparian areas (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to 

prevent resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian 

habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is 

a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and 

recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). 

This alternative has less potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the other 

alternatives, because plan language for specific riparian forest types is lacking and there is not a 

focus on functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Alternative A has language to follow approved or more recent conservation strategies or 

assessments only for certain species: for bald eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-100), Arizona 

leatherflower (hairy clematis) (1987 Plan, page 65-7), Arizona bugbane (1987 Plan, page 206-10) 

and Flagstaff pennyroyal (1987 Plan, page 65 and 206-10), but lacks this direction for other 

species. 

Alternative A lacks language regarding invasive or non-native animal species like crayfish. 

Alternative A lacks specific direction to impose timing restrictions to reduce disturbance to 

nesting common black hawks. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

626

Alternative B (modified)

Table 98 shows that under alternative B (modified), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would 

improve to good condition and trend slowly toward desired conditions except portions of the 

Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek and Dry Beaver Creek would improve faster (i.e., have a 

trend toward desired conditions). 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and slowly move 

toward desired conditions except portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would remain 

static in areas of high recreation use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the Beaver 

Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUCs.

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and slowly move toward 

desired conditions. In the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC, MWRF would move toward desired 

condition at a faster rate than alternative A. 

As shown in table 98, the likelihood that common black hawks would be limited by their habitat 

on the forest is low-moderate for all habitats. These likelihoods were derived by combining this 

species’ F Rank of F4 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 98 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the 

coarse filter habitats associated with these aquatic and riparian species. This means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. 

Alternative B (modified) emphasizes characteristic disturbances in species habitats more so than 

alternative A. This supports an underlying assumption of the revised plan that sustainable 

populations of native species would be maintained or enhanced where the ecosystems in which 

they occur or evolved are functioning properly. This is also supported in fire management with a 

desired condition that wildland fires would not result in loss of ecosystem function (FW-Fire-DC3). In addition, the emphasis on ecosystem function is better articulated in alternative B 

(modified) than alternative A. See FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, FW-Soil-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-DC-2, 3, FWRip-All-G-2, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, and FW-WFP-DC-1. This would be 

beneficial for common black hawks. 

Under alternative B (modified), projects and activities would be designed or managed to maintain 

or improve habitat for native species like common black hawks; to minimize the negative impact 

of pesticides or chemicals to species and their habitats; to protect and provide for species with 

restricted distributions where they are likely to occur; and would restrict project-related activities 

with the potential to disturb active raptor nests within 300 yards of nest sites (FW-WFP-G- 3, 4, 

10, and 11). This would promote reproduction and survival of this species. 

Guidelines in alternative B (modified) would prevent, control, contain, and eradicate priority 

infestations or populations of invasive species by incorporating measures into authorized 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

627

activities, project planning and implementation (FW-Invas-G-2). This would promote survival 

and reproduction. 

Like alternative A, alternative B (modified) has direction to follow conservation strategies, 

assessments or plans to improve the status of species and prevent Federal listing. Rather than 

restrict this to a few species, alternative B (modified) expands this direction via a forestwide 

guideline (FW-WFP-G-2). 

Alternative B (modified) recommends 3 wilderness areas, but there is only a small amount of 

common black hawk habitat in Davey’s and none in the other. Accordingly, the potential for 

recommended wilderness areas to reduce impacts from disturbance is negligible.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified) except for the following.

There are 1,333 additional of acres of riparian forest types in recommended wilderness that could 

be used by common black hawks. Recommended wilderness would provide an additional area of 

low disturbance for this species, which would be beneficial. This is due to emphasis on the 

maintenance of wilderness character, preserving native species, and natural ecological systems.

This includes reducing the impacts of motorized use, trail maintenance, existing structures (SARWild-DC-1, 2, 3 and G-1, 2, 4). 

Alternative C is the only alternative that makes determinations on the suitability of recreational 

shooting in certain areas, such as particular management areas. Under this alternative, the Sedona 

Neighborwoods Management Area would be not suitable for recreational shooting. This 

determination would lead to decisions that result in reduced disturbance within the Sedona 

Neighborwoods Management Area (about 15,125 acres), which supports nesting common black 

hawks. These acres include areas that might already be excluded from recreational shooting by 

law. Areas designated as not suitable do not automatically become no recreational shooting areas. 

Subsequent environmental analysis (including public review and comment) and decisions need to 

be done to make this official. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified), except there is no designated wilderness. 

The effects associated with managing those areas as recommended wilderness would not occur. 

These areas would still be managed by the other forestwide, management area, and special area 

direction in alternative B (modified) with the corresponding effects discussed above in the 

alternative B (modified) section. This difference between the alternatives would not result in a

change in the condition or trend of the riparian habitats from those provided by alternative B 

(modified) for this species.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of the common black hawk, although individuals may be impacted by 

management activities or permitted uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for 

the viability of this species than alternative A, because of updated plan guidance for riparian 

forest types. Recommended wilderness in alternative C would slightly increase areas of low 

disturbance for this species. Alternative C would reduce disturbance to this species the most due 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

628

to management areas that are not suitable for recreational shooting and more acres of black hawk 

habitat in recommended wilderness. 

Disturbed (Tusayan) rabbitbrush

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of disturbed rabbitbrush, a Forest Service sensitive species, is north 

central Arizona in Coconino County, and northeastern Arizona in Apache and Navajo counties. It 

occurs on the northern edge of the Coconino NF and on neighboring Kaibab NF. 

Habitat

Disturbed rabbitbrush is associated with the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs and is dependent on 

a specific soil type comprised of calcareous soil whose parent material was alluvium derived from 

Kaibab limestone and soil whose parent material was predominantly basalt. This unique soil type 

defines the range of the species. The soil type has significant quantities of calcium carbonate and 

commonly have a pH of 8 or more (TEUI 437 and 460). Unit 437 is derived from limestone 

parent material while unit 460 is derived from basalt. Soil disturbance in soil units 437 and 460 

could bring excessive amounts of calcareous soil to the surface. Unit 437 also has shallow soils 

and a high amount of surface rock fragments. Soil condition in these soil types are assumed to be 

the same as in the rest of the ERU.

Risk Factors

Heavy grazing can damage or kill plants and negatively impact the survival or reproduction of

disturbed rabbitbrush plants. Rarity is also a threat to this endemic species, because it is only 

known from the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Soil compaction or accelerated soil 

erosion from ground-disturbing activities are also threats.

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At Risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about the habitats.

Table 99 summarizes the viability analysis for disturbed rabbitbrush. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that these 

species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

629

Table 99. Analysis summary for disturbed rabbitbrush

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Disturbed 

rabbitbrush

(Sensitive) 

F-Rank = F1*

Calcareous 

soils in PJG

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, trending away 

at long term

M-H Low and high 

objectives: Fair, 

toward at short 

term then Fair, 

slowly away at 

long term 

M-H 

Management Effect PJG = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

PJG = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of 

this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including compaction or soils with high 

burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard and calcareous soils that 

have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such disturbances cannot be avoided, projectspecific best management practices should be developed. Finally, specific project design features 

would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater than 40 percent grade where soils with 

moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where soils are sensitive to degradation when 

disturbed. 

Alternative A

Table 99 shows that Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain in fair condition and trend toward

from desired conditions in the short term due to expected mechanical treatments and burning 

using wildfire for resource objectives. However, the trend for Pinyon Juniper with Grass is 

expected to move away from desired condition over time because there are currently more trees 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

630

per acre and greater cover due to fire exclusion and weather patterns which have favored tree 

germination and establishment. The expected treatment level is insufficient to offset the negative 

effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. As a result, understory abundance and 

diversity has decreased, decreasing the potential for surface fires. Fire exclusion has also altered 

structural stage; stand age; canopy cover; mosaic pattern; fuel composition; and fire frequency, 

severity, and pattern. 

As shown in table 99, the likelihood that disturbed rabbitbrush would be limited by its habitat on 

the forest is moderate-high. This likelihood was derived by using the process in table 9 in volume 

IIa and combining the species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within 

the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Pinyon Juniper 

with Grass, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of disturbed rabbitbrush than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative 

A provides outdated direction for Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU. Under the current 

management, the density and cover of trees in this ERU would continue to increase, resulting in 

the decrease of understory abundance and diversity and degradation of habitat for this species. 

Soil is an important component of the habitat for disturbed rabbitbrush. The limiting soil type 

contributes to the rarity of this species. In alternative A, disturbed rabbitbrush occurs in MA 10 

(Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper above the Rim), with management emphasis on livestock 

and wildlife grazing and watershed protection. The focus on soils in this management area is 

mostly based on the suitability for range improvement and focuses on maintaining seral 

grasslands that were created by type conversion of woodlands to grasslands (through chaining). 

Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey (soil survey) is discussed in the context of range forage 

maintenance or improvement, not ecological diversity or rare plants. 

Heavy grazing can be an impact on disturbed rabbitbrush plants. Alternative A allows grazing on 

allotments in MA 10 (Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper above the Rim) with an emphasis on 

maintaining seral grasslands. If areas of excessive grazing overlap with plant locations, individual 

plants could be crushed or damaged. Alternative A promotes the establishment of allowable use 

guidelines with allotment-specific environmental analysis or with the use of a table based on 

range condition and management strategy (1987 Plan, page 66-1). However, the range condition 

classes in the table are no longer used and the currently used overall approach for grazing 

utilization is adaptive management based on objectives established in site-specific environmental

analysis. Problem areas would be addressed through the allotment management plan process or 

monitoring. Permitted use and capacities would be balanced by increasing or decreasing livestock 

numbers, changing management intensity levels, initiating changes in livestock class, season of 

use, and rotation patterns (1987 Plan, page 67) which are many of the same techniques currently 

implemented on the ground. Alternative A uses outdated language such as full capacity range and 

has less of an ecological approach to understory conditions than the other alternatives (1987 Plan, 

page 67). 

Alternative A does not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types, which differ from each 

other in composition, structure, and processes. The plan provides little direction on desired 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

631

conditions for this ERU. Plan language emphasizes the use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatments to achieve management objectives associated with range, watershed condition, and 

wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, pages 148 to 155 and 162 to 165). There is an emphasis on prescribed 

burning and individual tree removal to achieve range improvements (1987 Plan, page 164) as 

well as mechanical treatment of vegetation, emphasizing sustained-yield for firewood and 

miscellaneous convertible products (1987 Plan, p ages 148, 169). Consequently, managers lack 

specific guidance for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU, which supports disturbed rabbitbrush. 

Direction in the current forest plan for pinyon juniper is generally outdated. Different 

management objectives occur for slopes greater than 15 percent and slopes less than 15 percent. 

For example, old growth, cover, and snags are generally provided on slopes greater than 

15 percent, while mechanical treatment should be managed on slopes less than 15 percent (1987 

Plan, page 148). The recommended silvicultural systems provide sufficient flexibility to move 

toward desired conditions; however, the direction to manage cover in Pinyon Juniper with Grass 

would leave too much canopy cover across the landscape to return to the desired grassland state 

of this ERU.

Forestwide plan components for soil would contribute to the viability of associated species by 

maintaining or improving soil productivity and watershed conditions where needed (1987 Plan, 

page 23). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 99 shows that habitat condition and trend for Pinyon Juniper with Grass is the same as 

alternative A. The condition of Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain fair, but the trend would 

be toward desired conditions in the short term, then trend slowly away from desired conditions in 

the long term because the treatment levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2) are not sufficient to offset 

the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

As shown in table 99, the likelihood that disturbed rabbitbrush would be limited by its habitat on 

the forest is moderate-high. This likelihood was derived by using the process in table 9 in volume 

IIa and combining the species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within 

the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

Management effect is a 2, because alternative B (modified) clearly distinguishes between 

different Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides desired conditions, objectives, and 

guidance that are specific to the each type. Management direction would promote properly 

functioning ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote 

characteristic disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote 

balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems, thereby, furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4, FWTerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with 

varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5-9; FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1, 2, 3, 5). 

Unlike alternative A, this alternative defines three ERUs in the pinyon juniper forest type: Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

632

Alternative B (modified) would provide clearer direction in terms of desired conditions, allowing 

for a greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move toward desired conditions. See FWTerrERU-All-DC-1, 2, 3; FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-1 to 5, FW-TerrERU-PJ-G–1, 2, 5. 

The soil section has beneficial guidance to avoid disturbance that would impact the long-term soil 

productivity (FW-Soil-G-2). A beneficial desired condition in Wildlife, Fish and Plants (FWWFP-DC-5), would addresses the composition, structure, function and physical components 

including soil for threatened, endangered, sensitive and endemic species. These components 

address the habitat for disturbed rabbitbrush better than the direction in alternative A.

Alternative B (modified) has a desired condition for livestock grazing that calls for permitted 

livestock grazing to be consistent with the desired conditions for other resources (FW-Graz-DC2) and a guideline to manage livestock grazing to meet or move toward the desired conditions for 

forest resources including soil and vegetation (FW-Graz-G-2). This guidance is useful in 

addressing the effects of permitted livestock but does not address grazing by wildlife. Alternative 

B (modified) has updated language and provisions under Livestock Grazing that would reduce 

impacts to the understory from excessive grazing. Plan components promote permitted livestock 

grazing that is consistent with the desired conditions of other resources, but recognizes that 

conditions adjacent to livestock concentration areas may have lower levels of vegetation and 

higher levels of soil compaction (FW-Graz-DC-2 and 3, FW-Graz-G-2). The localized areas 

where this guideline would apply would be of lower habitat quality compared to areas farther 

from livestock concentration areas and could excessively graze any disturbed rabbitbrush plants 

in livestock concentration areas. Guidelines promote herbivory by permitted livestock and 

wildlife in balance with available forage (FW-Graz-G-1), sufficient rest from livestock grazing in 

burned or mechanically treated areas to ensure plant recovery and vigor and to ensure that 

perennial plants would not be permanently damaged by grazing (FW-Graz-G-3), and promote 

structural range improvements and salt and other supplements be located and used in a manner 

that sensitive resources (which include sensitive species) are protected from excessive trampling, 

compaction and other impacts (FW-Graz-G-4 and 5). These guidelines would contribute to the 

viability of this species by promoting grazing in balance with species needs. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses speciesspecific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution. 

Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would provide 

microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would provide the 

resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations (FWWFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and implemented to 

maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species and to 

protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted distributions where 

they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

There is no habitat for this species in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative and 

therefore no impact.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified). There is no habitat for this species 

in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative and therefore no impact. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

633

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of disturbed rabbitbrush, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for disturbed rabbitbrush, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A primarily 

because of updated plan components for soil, grazing, and at-risk and rare species. Reasons 

include the focus on structure, function and resiliency for all ERUs, additional language that 

addresses rarity and provides for endemic species and species with restricted distributions. 

Flagstaff pennyroyal

Affected Environment 

Flagstaff pennyroyal is a Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Distribution

There are two major populations of Flagstaff pennyroyal on the Coconino NF; the first extends 

between Flagstaff, Marshall Lake, Fisher Point, and south to the vicinity of Mountainaire and 

Lower Lake Mary. A second population is near the rim of Oak Creek Canyon and its tributaries. 

The estimated amount of habitat on the forest for the Flagstaff pennyroyal is greater than 700 

acres with about 258 occurrences known. 

Habitat

Flagstaff pennyroyal occurs on limestone substrates such as dolomitic limestone cliffs, and rock 

pavement in Ponderosa Pine forest in a broad range of canopy cover (0 to 86 percent). It has also 

been found in Interior Chaparral. Dolomitic limestone is found in certain areas of the forest such 

as near Lower Lake Mary, Marshall Mesa, and near the edge of Sycamore Canyon. Dolomitic 

limestone contains high levels of magnesium and the condition of dolomitic limestone-derived 

soil is assumed Soil condition is assumed to be the same as in the rest of the ERU. 

Risk Factors

Major threats are rarity and disturbance. Flagstaff pennyroyal is susceptible to disturbance from 

activities such as road construction and maintenance, vegetative treatments, and burning, which 

can crush or remove plants. Rarity is an inherent threat to this species due to its restricted 

distribution. 

Environmental Consequences

For additional information see Coarse Filter: Habitat and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section on At Risk Species and Disturbance to Plants. 

Table 100 summarizes the viability analysis for Flagstaff pennyroyal. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that the species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

634

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.

Table 100. Analysis summary for Flagstaff pennyroyal

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Flagstaff 

pennyroyal

(Sensitive)

F Rank = 

F1*

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward

at short term 

then Fair, 

toward at long 

term 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

IC Good, away at 

short term 

then Fair, 

away at long 

term 

Short term: M 

Long term: H

Good, away M 

Cliffs and 

rocky 

outcrops

Good, static M Good, static M 

Management Effect PP = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection 

and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan 

area. Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

IC, Cliffs = 4: Decline in habitat 

quality as a result of 

management or lack of 

management that result from 

plan components. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Flagstaff pennyroyal is considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations 

known and they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute 

to species viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

635

protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 

64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-

66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-

109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Under all alternatives the habitat condition and trend for ponderosa pine remains fair trending 

toward desired condition. Interior chaparral remains in good condition with a trend away from 

desired conditions, and cliffs remain in good condition with a static trend compared to desired 

condition. 

All alternatives incorporate the Management Plan for Flagstaff Pennyroyal (USDA Forest Service 

1984) by reference (1987 plan, page 65; Revised Plan, Appendix D, Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, 

Other). The Management Plan contains mitigations that would reduce impacts from grounddisturbing management activities such as timber harvest, prescribed fire and road construction 

that occur in the habitat of Flagstaff pennyroyal. 

Invasive plants can increase as a consequence of ground disturbance and once established could 

compete with Flagstaff pennyroyal for water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All 

alternatives address the threat of invasive plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This 

direction includes best management practices, among other guidance, which would help prevent, 

mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for 

incorporating control measures in project planning and implementation, and emphasize 

coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, 

FW-Invas-DC-1, 2, 3, FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERUIC-DC-3, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-RipSpr-G-3, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More detailed analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues 

and Topic section called Non-native Species and Disease. 

Flagstaff pennyroyal occurs in the Red Rock – Secret Mountain Wilderness. Plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional protection to this species so would contribute to the 

viability of this species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning 

properly and would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness 

area; management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward 

desired conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to 

prevent wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SAWild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). There are restrictions on the types of activities that can occur 

within designated wilderness; some of which are based on the provisions of the Wilderness Act 

(1964) and some are based on the direction provided in the current forest plan. Mechanized and 

motorized use in designated wilderness is not permitted thus there would be no ground 

disturbance from these uses in the habitat for Flagstaff pennyroyal.

Alternative A

Table 100 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

636

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 

Interior Chaparral would be in good condition with a trend away from desired conditions in the 

short term. In the long term, Interior Chaparral would move to fair condition and continue 

trending away from desired conditions due to the threats of non-native invasive weeds and 

uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Cliffs and rocky outcrops would remain in good condition with a static trend relative to desired 

condition. 

As shown in table 100, the likelihood that Flagstaff pennyroyal would be limited by habitat 

quality on the forest is moderate to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining Flagstaff pennyroyal’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each habitat: Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in 

long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), Interior 

Chaparral (low in the short term, moderate in the long term), and cliffs and rocky outcrops (low)

(table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 100 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

alternative A in terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 

a 3 for Ponderosa Pine, which means that plan components in all alternatives maintain or improve 

protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute 

less to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. The management effect is classified 

as a 4 for Interior Chaparral and cliffs, which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result 

of management or lack of management that result from plan components. Plan components may 

not exist or may be few. Alternative A lacks plan components specific to Interior Chaparral and 

cliffs and the habitats they provide. 

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape, while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as Flagstaff 

pennyroyal. 

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs, and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. 

The management effect is classified as a 4 for the Interior Chaparral ERU, which means there is a 

decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Alternative A provides little to no direction on specific desired conditions for 

Interior Chaparral. The Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem-wide plan direction includes some 

beneficial guidance, but it only covers a small proportion of Interior Chaparral ERU. Sedona/Oak 

Creek Ecosystem-wide plan direction includes provisions to conserve or restore natural 

ecosystem disturbance patterns and function and to promote the natural ecological role of fire 

within the constraints of human health and safety, while the mosaic of vegetative conditions 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

637

reduce the occurrence of catastrophic fires (1987 Plan, pages 206-9, 206-11, 206-19). The 

ecosystem-wide direction would reduce fire risk by prohibiting camping and campfires in the 

Neighborwoods, Oak Creek Canyon, and Redrock-Front Country MAs, except in designated 

places (1987 Plan, page 206-24). 

Most of the guidance for cliffs is limited to visual quality and the importance of cliffs to 

archaeology (1987 Plan, pages 206-43 and 206-46). Additional language protects, improves, or 

maintains habitat for Forest Service sensitive species and would specify the development of a 

rock climbing plan that would detail mitigation measures to protect sensitive species such as 

Flagstaff pennyroyal (1987 plan, pages 23, 206-67, and 206-70). 

Although alternative A includes language that would benefit Flagstaff pennyroyal, guidance 

found in alternative A is based on outdated science and information about these plants. 

Additionally, it lacks plan components for most rare and endemic plants, and is largely silent on 

direction and mitigation for many management actions. 

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 100 shows that the condition and trend of Ponderosa Pine ERU and cliffs and rocky 

outcrops are the same as under alternative A. Interior Chaparral habitat would remain in good 

condition in the short and long term, trending away due to the threats of non-native invasive 

weeds and uncharacteristic wildfire. 

As shown in table 100, the likelihood that Flagstaff pennyroyal would be limited by habitat 

quality on the forest is moderate to high. These likelihoods were derived by combining this 

species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: 

Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), Interior Chaparral (low), and cliffs and 

rocky outcrops (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within 

the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 2 for all the habitats 

associated with Flagstaff pennyroyal. This means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

Plan components in alternative B (modified) better address at-risk species than alternative A. For 

example, desired conditions for Biophysical Features seek to maintain cliffs in generally 

undisturbed conditions from human activities, maintaining the cultural, archaeological, 

geological, hydrological, paleontological, biological, and aesthetic resources of these features 

(FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-1) and acknowledge the importance of the specialized habitats for plants 

and animals that depend on them (FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-6). Projects would be designed to 

maintain the integrity and function of caves, karst, cliffs, and talus slopes. Where alteration of 

these resources cannot be avoided, they would be mitigated to mimic pre-disturbance conditions 

and function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). Desired condition in the Wildlife, Fish and Plants section 

provides direction for preserving the composition, structure and function of the ERUs and the 

physical features including cliffs and rock piles that provide habitat and refugia for the plants and 

animals that depend on them (FW-WFP–DC-5). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

638

Another desired condition would provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain 

species diversity and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities 

should be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of 

Southwestern Region sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species 

and species with restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

In alternative B (modified), treatment objectives in the Ponderosa Pine ERU would create more 

open conditions that favor this species and facilitate a frequent low severity fire regime to which 

this species is adapted. Implementation of plan objectives and removal of restrictions on the use 

of wildfires with resource objectives in wildland-urban interface and in wilderness would also 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape and benefit habitat for this species. This 

plan language could facilitate the use of prescribed fire or wildfire for restoration or fuels 

reduction however these activities would still need to maintain wilderness characteristics and 

comply with regulations associated with wilderness. 

Alternative B has desired conditions and guidelines specific to the Interior Chaparral ERU 

whereas these are absent in alternative A. The presence and increase of invasive plant species 

could reinforce the trend away from desired conditions. Fire return interval is expected to remain 

moderately departed and trending away from the desired conditions. Vegetative quality may 

improve by managing wildfires for resource objectives when burning conditions permit (FWTerrERU-All-G-2). Although alternative B (modified) lacks plan objectives for this ERU, any 

vegetative treatments or uses that occur in the future would maintain, improve, or not affect 

desired conditions and would follow the intent of the guidelines. 

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative 

A. Although all alternatives provide mitigations for effects to these species from management 

actions, the mitigations are stronger in alternative B (modified). See Disturbance to Plants in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above.

Soil desired conditions would promote proper functioning soils, soil protection and stabilization, 

and nutrient cycling (FW-Soil-DC-1 to 4). Forestwide soil guidelines would avoid excessive 

ground disturbance and limit accelerated erosion (FW-Soil-G-1 to 3). This would help to protect 

the limestone based rock formation and associated soils needed for Flagstaff pennyroyal. 

There is no habitat for this species in any of the wildernesses recommended in this alternative, 

and therefore, no impact.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). There is no habitat for this species in any of 

the wildernesses recommended in this alternative, and therefore, no impact.

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of the Flagstaff pennyroyal, although, individuals may be impacted by sitespecific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

639

Federal listing for Flagstaff pennroyal, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. All 

alternatives provide plan components that address the threat of disturbance from human activities 

by protecting habitats for sensitive, rare and endemic species. All alternatives, particularly 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D, would also improve ponderosa pine forests for the Flagstaff 

pennyroyal. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D contribute more to the viability of Flagstaff 

pennyroyal than alternative A, because they have forestwide plan components for Interior 

Chaparral ERU and cliffs, which are largely absent in the current plan. 

Gunnison’s prairie dog

Prairie dogs are considered to be a keystone, or “strongly interactive” species (Soulé in 

Underwood 2007). Prairie dogs alter grasslands by modifying vegetation structure and 

composition, soil structure, nitrogen concentration in plant shoots, and landscape configuration. 

They create a mosaic of different patch structures within the grassland matrix at the landscape 

level and maintain grassland ecosystems by preventing encroachment of woody species. 

A wide variety of wildlife species use some attribute of prairie dog colonies. Black-footed ferrets, 

golden eagles, and ferruginous hawks feed on prairie dogs. Prairie dog burrows are used for 

shelter by burrowing owls (also nesting cavities), black-footed ferrets, and many species of 

snakes, lizards, amphibians, and insects. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

In Arizona, Gunnison’s prairie dogs are found in the grasslands and to a lesser extent shrublands, 

north of the Mogollon Rim and south of the Colorado River. Their presence within this range is 

highly fragmented and widely scattered and is most likely an artifact of historic control efforts 

and current plague outbreaks (Hoffmeister 1986, Underwood 2007). Prairie dogs are thought to 

shift across the landscape but persist in the same general geographic area. On Coconino NF, they 

occur on the Flagstaff and Mogollon Ranger Districts as well as on lands in other ownerships.

Habitat 

Prairie dogs are associated with Great Basin Grassland, Montane Subalpine Grassland, and 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs. They need well-drained, deep soils on generally flat slopes to 

dig their burrows (Wagner and Drickamer 2003, in Underwood 2007) and are adapted to living in 

arid, nutrient limiting environments with pronounced changes in moisture patterns and 

temperature extremes. They feed on grasses, sedges, forbs, and seeds. 

Risk Factors

Prairie dog populations fluctuate in response to weather and sylvatic plague, the species’ primary 

threat in Arizona. The primary factor limiting Gunnison’s prairie dog population densities is 

sylvatic plague, a flea-transmitted disease caused by an introduced non-native bacterium 

(Underwood 2007). Rarity is a risk because they are disjunct from larger core distributions of 

species outside of Arizona and they are found in a limited number of groups at high concentration 

for all of their life cycle (AZGFD 2012).

Shooting of prairie dogs is authorized under a hunting license from the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department; which has instituted seasonal shooting closures from April 1 to June 30 to protect 

pregnant and lactating prairie dogs and their young (Underwood 2007, AZGFD 2017). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

640

Environmental Consequences

Table 101 summarizes the viability analysis for Gunnison’s prairie dog. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.

Table 101. Analysis summary for Gunnison’s prairie dog

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and status Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood

species is 

limited

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog (Other)

Restricted distribution 

F Rank =F3*

GBG Good, away at 

short term 

then Fair, 

away at long 

term 

Short term: L 

Long term: M 

Low and high 

objectives: 

Good, static

L 

MSG Good, away at 

short term 

then Fair, 

Away at long 

term 

Short term: L

Long term: M

Good, toward L 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term 

then Fair,

away at long 

term 

L-M Low and high 

objectives: Fair, 

toward at short 

term then Fair, 

slowly away at 

long term

L-M 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan 

components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained 

or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

641

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

All alternatives support the retention of unfragmented areas such as in Deadman Wash (page 206-

87, MA-PntdDsrt-DC-2, and MA-VolcanWd-DC-4), which is Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. 

Alternative A

Table 101 shows that the Great Basin Grassland ERU would remain in good condition and 

trending away from desired conditions in the short term, because tree and shrub cover would 

continue to increase and understory would decrease in abundance and vigor. In the long term, the 

Great Basin Grassland ERU would be in fair condition and continue trending away from desired 

conditions. 

The Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU would remain in good condition in the short term, then 

move to fair condition in the long term. The Montane/Subalpine Grasslands would continue 

trending away from desired conditions due to an increase in tree and shrub establishment, 

especially along the periphery because of a continued lack of fire’s natural role in the ecosystem. 

The Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would remain in fair condition, trending toward desired 

conditions in the short term due to expected mechanical treatments and burning using wildfire for 

resource objectives. However, the trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU is expected to 

move away from desired conditions in the long term, because generally, the treatment level is 

insufficient to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. As a result, 

understory abundance and diversity has decreased, decreasing the potential for surface fires. Fire 

exclusion has also altered structural stage; stand age; canopy cover; mosaic pattern; fuel 

composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. 

As shown in table 101, the likelihood that habitat quality would be a limiting factor on the forest

for Gunnison’s prairie dogs is low to moderate depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low in the short term, moderate in the long 

term), Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low in the short term, moderate in the long term), and 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the Great Basin 

Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, and Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs, which means 

that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species than 

the other alternatives. 

For Great Basin Grassland and Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, this management effect rating is 

primarily because alternative A lacks plan language for the different grassland types, which differ 

from each other in terms of precipitation patterns, composition, soil types, elevation, and 

structure. Plan language is outdated, for example there is an emphasis on forage species rather 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

642

than ecological conditions. Alternative A contains language in MA 9 - Mountain Grassland and 

MA 10 - Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper Above the Rim to emphasize wildlife habitat in 

these areas (1987 Plan, pages 158 and 162), and it includes one standard and guideline to control 

the invasion of undesirable plant species to improve and protect wildlife values (1987 Plan, page 

164). This would be beneficial for prairie dogs (which feed on native species). In the older 

sections of the current plan, guidance for grassland composition is focused on a balanced 

composition of cool and warm season grasses and forage species, which may or may not include 

native plant species. This language does not emphasize forbs, an important food item for prairie 

dogs. More recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Area, have a more ecological approach to composition by promoting diverse healthy populations 

of native plants and animals with a natural variety of plant species, age classes, and structures but 

this guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. This alternative 

lacks specific plan language for prairie dog habitat. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass, this management effect rating is because alternative A also does 

not distinguish between nor provide desired conditions for the three pinyon juniper types which 

differ from each other in composition, structure, and processes. There is one broad vegetation 

category of Pinyon Juniper. The different pinyon juniper types are differentiated on the basis of 

slope instead of composition, structure, and processes. Consequently, vegetation structure, and 

consequently habitat for these species, would not be equitably, or naturally, distributed across the 

landscape and managers lack specific guidance for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU. The 

emphasis on the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to achieve management 

objectives associated with range and watershed condition could maintain or improve habitat for 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs (1987 Plan, pages 148 through 155; 162 through 165). The recommended 

silvicultural systems provide sufficient flexibility to move toward desired conditions; however, 

the direction to manage cover in Pinyon Juniper with Grass would leave too much canopy cover 

across the landscape to return to the desired grassland state of this ERU and areas of too much 

canopy cover would not favor habitat for this species. 

In alternative A, connectivity of habitats is primarily addressed through area-specific or habitatspecific plan language rather than forestwide language. Plan components mainly focus on cover 

requirements in travelways for big game species but some would indirectly maintain connections 

for grassland species like prairie dogs. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 101 shows that the Great Basin Grasslands ERU would remain in good condition, but the 

trend would improve to static relative to desired condition. Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU 

would be in good condition with a trend toward desired conditions. Like alternative A, the 

condition of Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain fair with a trend toward desired conditions 

in the short term. In the long term, the condition would remain fair, but would trend slowly away 

from desired conditions because the treatment levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2) are not sufficient 

to offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

As shown in table 101, the likelihood that habitat quality on the forest would be limiting to 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs is low to low-moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this specie’s F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Great Basin Grassland (low), Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low), and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

643

Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats in this group, which means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. 

This management effect rating is because this alternative distinguishes between the grassland and 

pinyon juniper habitats on the forest and containing explicit and updated direction on the 

composition, structure, and processes for Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, 

and Pinyon Juniper with Grass. Under the updated plan direction, there is an overall emphasis on 

ecological conditions which would support a variety of species; properly functioning ecosystems, 

and restoration of desired disturbance regimes (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2). This direction would lead to 

decreases in tree and shrub establishment and a corresponding increase in the distribution and 

abundance of herbaceous species in all of these ERUs primarily due to increased treatment levels. 

For example, plan components in alternative B (modified) update desired conditions for grassland 

vegetation by having a more ecological approach to species composition and structure based on 

site potential compared to alternative A, and one desired condition that includes the presence of 

bare soil at the fine scale (less than 10 acres) as a natural process of prairie dog burrowing (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-4 and 8). Alternative B (modified) includes a management approach to 

specifically collaborate with partners and stakeholders on grassland restoration and connectivity. 

Another management approach specifically lists prairie dogs as a species to coordinate with 

Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding objectives 

affecting wildlife conservation, education, habitat restoration, and improvement (FW-TerrERUGrass, Management Approaches Grassland ERUs). The updated direction and the anticipated 

effects are discussed in greater detail by ERU in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. 

Alternative B (modified) also addresses the disease and connectivity risk factors to this species 

better than alternative A. This alternative includes a guideline for all Wildlife, Fish, and Plants to 

maintain/improve habitat for native species and prevent or reduce the likelihood of introduction 

or spread of invasive species (FW-WFP-G-3). This guideline would help reduce the spread of 

sylvatic plague among this species, which should reduce fluctuations in its population on and near 

the forest. Habitat connectivity is addressed in several ways. A desired condition describes a 

mostly contiguous land base that provides for biological diversity, retains its wildland character, 

and retains open space values (FW-LndAdj-DC-1). An objective would reduce barriers to 

movement or mortality hazards like roads by leading to the naturalization or decommissioning of 

200 to 800 miles of unauthorized roads and system roads (as identified on the motor vehicle use 

map) (FW-RdsFac-O-1). Additional information on how this alternative addresses pathogens 

(non-native or invasive species) and connectivity is discussed in greater detail in the Wildlife and 

Plants Issues and Topics section.

Alternative C

Generally, the effects under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified).

However, alternative C is the only alternative with management areas designed to reduce humanrelated disturbance, the limitation of which can be beneficial to wildlife habitat. Design features 

to accomplish this would include emphasis on low-disturbance non-motorized recreational 

activities; no net increase in the area of motorized dispersed camping corridors; limitations on the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

644

roads that provide public motorized access; and a ban on large group recreation events and large 

commercial tours, except in support of research. These management areas contain almost 

65,000 acres of grasslands and would emphasize native species. They include Anderson Mesa, 

Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and 

Second Chance Management Areas. They would reduce human disturbance in those areas where 

the area is not already protected by existing designations, such as inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D contribute 

considerably more to the viability of this species than alternative A, primarily because plan 

components are included to: account for the different types of grasslands and pinyon juniper on 

the forest and have updated guidance; account for connectivity on a forestwide basis rather than 

in site-specific areas; and address disease and non-native species, a primary threat to the species 

(this is lacking in alternative A). 

MacDougal’s aletes

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of MacDougal’s aletes, classified as an Other planning species, is 

portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. On the Coconino NF, this species is known to occur 

in the West Fork of Oak Creek and Schnebly Hill area, where it grows in rocky ledges and 

crevices (Theobald et al. 1963). 

Habitat

MacDougal’s aletes occurs in Ponderosa Pine and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs, as well 

as the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest type. It grows in rock crevices, sandy ground 

and rocky soil from pinyon juniper to bristlecone pine communities (Springer et al. 2009). 

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to this species due to its restricted distribution, which is limited to 

Arizona. Disturbance to plants is also a risk from management activities, such as vegetation 

treatments, fire, and road work.

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At Risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about the habitats.

Table 102 summarizes the viability analysis for MacDougal’s aletes. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

645

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.

Table 102. Analysis summary for MacDougal’s aletes

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

MacDougal’s PJES Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 

aletes (Other). 

F Rank= F1*

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

MBDRF Good, majority is 

static to slowly 

toward: Oak 

Creek 5th code 

HUC is Fair to 

Good and static 

H Good, majority is 

slowly toward:

Oak Creek 5th

code HUC is 

Good and toward

H 

Management effect All habitats = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. Quality 

of habitat is maintained or improved 

by providing protection, maintenance, 

and restoration to some occurrences.

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area.

Management Effect = * F1= Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would employ either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

646

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions and 

habitat for riparian species. See 1987 Plan, pages 23, 71, 72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-RipType-O1, FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4. 

Instream flow water rights would be maintained and procured at similar levels under all 

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74 and 206 and FW-Water-G-3). Procurement of instream flow 

water rights would improve the extent of uninterrupted streamflows across NFS lands, thereby 

providing greater aquatic and riparian habitat continuity and resilience. 

Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing site-specific best management practices 

best management practices for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-Soil-G-1, 2, 

and 3). Implementation of this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that 

could cause loss of protective vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance including 

compaction or soils with high burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe erosion 

hazard and calcareous soils that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices should be developed. 

Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater 

than 40 percent grade where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur or where 

soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. 

Instream flow water rights would be maintained and procured at similar levels under all 

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74 and 206 and FW-Water-G-3). Procurement of instream flow 

water rights would improve the extent of uninterrupted streamflows across NFS lands, thereby, 

providing greater aquatic and riparian habitat continuity and resilience. 

MacDougal’s aletes is within the segment of West Fork of Oak Creek that is eligible for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. MacDougal’s aletes and its habitat would benefit 

from plan language that would manage recreation and other activities along eligible rivers and 

their corridors to protect and enhance the free-flowing condition and outstandingly remarkable 

values consistent with the classification (SA-WSR-DC-1 and 3, G-1). Alternative A lacks 

guidance for rivers determined to be eligible for designation as wild and scenic rivers, but policy 

directs that rivers found to be eligible and suitable must be protected as far as possible to the same 

extent as a designated study river (FSM 2354.21). 

Some populations of MacDougal’s aletes are in the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. Plan 

language for designated wilderness would contribute to the viability of this species in all 

alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a natural 

assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities and 

permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for wilderness 

and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values from being 

compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

The Oak Creek Research Natural Area contains habitat for this species. Plan components 

preserving the natural conditions of the research natural area (Pages 25 and 194, SARNABotGeo-DC – 1 through 4) preserve the habitat and contribute to the viability of 

MacDougal’s aletes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

647

Recreational uses such as hiking and camping in West Fork pose a localized threat to individuals 

of this species. All alternatives would prohibit overnight camping in the research natural area

(Page 108-3, SA-RNABotGeo-S -1). All alternatives provide for managing trails in the West Fork 

area (Page 108-2, and FW-Rec-Trails-DC -4 and 11). The direction in alternative A is specific to 

West Fork and provided the impetus for consolidating multiple user created trails into one 

maintained trail in the area. The forestwide desired conditions in alternative B (modified) provide 

for managing user damage to trails and keeping users on maintained trails while reducing the 

proliferation of social trails. All of these mitigate the potential effects of recreation to 

MacDougal’s aletes.

Alternative A

Table 102 shows that under alternative A, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair 

condition and would trend away from desired conditions due to departure in the fire return 

interval and increases in trees and shrubs. Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could 

increase competition with this species and facilitate a higher fire severity than this species 

evolved with, thereby, degrading the habitat. 

Table 102 also shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 

acres prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, 

then improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. Static trends would 

be associated with the Oak Creek 5th code (in which this species occurs). Trend would be static 

or moving slowly toward desired conditions except in the Oak Creek 5th code HUC where 

recreation impacts are high. Areas of private land would remain static as well. 

As shown as table 102, the likelihood that habitat quality on the forest would be a limiting factor 

for MacDougal’s aletes is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub S (low-moderate), Ponderosa Pine

(moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate 

for high treatment objective), and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 

9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 102 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all 

habitats, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, alternative A would maintain or improve 

riparian forests because it has a focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing 

damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

648

to good condition as soon as possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-8, 172, 174, 206-8). Alternative A has 

guidance to construct 10 miles of fences per decade for the first two decades where necessary to 

protect key wet meadows, wetlands, and riparian regeneration from grazing (1987 Plan, page 

175). Other protective language includes the following: Only beneficial new special uses are 

allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as utility line or roads crossing streamcourses are 

designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). 

Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent resource damage utilizing methods that 

minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, 

acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177, 185). 

The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values 

(1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 206-22, 206-26, 206-39). Plan language for the Flagstaff/ Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Area guides managers to consider road closure or obliteration when there are 

threatened and damaged riparian areas or roads within wetlands that reduce hydrologic function 

(1987 Plan, 206-70, 206-71). Other beneficial plan language would protect Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest by amending allotment management plans to contribute toward 

achieving satisfactory riparian condition (1987 Plan, pages 73, 175). Alternative A would also 

maintain 80 percent crown cover, 80 percent emergent vegetation cover, and three age classes of 

woody riparian species (1987 Plan, page 174). 

However, plan language in alternative A lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, 

and function of the different types of riparian areas, and relative to natural disturbances and 

current science. Consequently, this alternative has less potential for improvement to riparian 

condition compared to the other alternatives. The trend on some portions of stream riparian areas 

would remain static due to impacts from other resource areas (e.g., recreation, livestock) and lack 

of specificity with regard to forest plan guidance. Refer to Watershed section, volume I, for 

additional information on Watersheds and Riparian Systems. 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this management effect rating is because alternative A does 

not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types which differ from each other in 

composition, structure, and processes. The plan provides little direction on desired conditions for 

these ERUs as it is lumped into the broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper, and plan 

direction varies only by slope. Consequently, vegetation structure would not be equitably 

distributed across the landscape.

For the Ponderosa Pine ERU, this management effect rating is because direction to broadcast seed 

following burns using a high production multi-growing season species to attain a balanced 

composition of cool and warm season forage species could have a negative effect on this species 

due to competition for nutrients and water with non-native species that could be a part of this seed 

mix. However, language to maintain open meadows in ponderosa pine, eliminate invading 

overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could improve habitat for this species. See 1987 Plan 

page 120. The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but 

suppression objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize 

suppression costs, and provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the 

ecosystem challenging, so the ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being 

impacted by fire. See 1987 Plan, pages 93, 94, 137. 

MacDougal’s aletes occurs in the West Fork of Oak Creek on the Red Rock Ranger District, a 

very popular hiking area. Recreational impacts that could crush plants or cause excessive soil 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

649

erosion of habitat would be reduced by plan language that prohibits camping except at designated 

sites and that prohibits horse and pack stock use (1987 plan, pages 90, 108-2 and 3). 

Alternative B (modified) 

Table 102 shows that under alternative B (modified), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

would remain in good condition and slowly move toward desired conditions except it would 

improve faster than alternative A in the Oak Creek 5th code HUCs. 

The condition and trend for the Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to alternative A, remaining 

in poor condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term under low treatment 

objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). However, in the short term 

under the high vegetation treatment objectives (260,050 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres 

prescribed fire) and in the long term under both the low and high vegetation treatment objectives, 

the condition would improve to fair and trend toward desired conditions. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition and would continue to trend 

away from desired condition, like alternative A, because expected treatments would be inadequate 

to keep up with regeneration and tree growth. Treatments would not be expected to occur within 

the populations in wilderness. 

Table 102 also shows that the overall likelihood habitat would be that this species would be 

limited by the quality of its habitat on the forest is high for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest and moderate-high for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub and Ponderosa Pine. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), 

Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (lowmoderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural 

range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for both habitats.

This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, this rating is primarily because there are 

updated desired conditions and guidelines that support composition, structure, and function of 

riparian forests (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian 

functional condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for 

vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC1, 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). This would be beneficial if restoration occurs in 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest or its associated watersheds. More site-specific 

aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and 

Plant section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

650

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this management effect rating is because alternative B 

(modified) provides desired conditions, objectives and guidance specific to the each type of 

pinyon juniper on the forest. Management direction would promote properly functioning 

ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic 

disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU 

specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5 

to 9; FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1, 2, 3, 5). 

Alternative B (modified) provides for well-marked and maintained trails and promotes trail use 

that remains on the established trail surface and where damage to resources is minimal and within 

the ability of the forest to mitigate (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-1, 4, 11). This guidance provides better 

protection for MacDougal’s aletes than alternative A by adding desired condition language about 

minimal damage to associated resources. 

Rarity is a risk for MacDougal’s aletes. Alternative B (modified) has components that address 

rarity better than alternative A. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat 

conditions that would provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFPDC-5) and would provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity 

and metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed 

and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region 

sensitive species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with 

restricted distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative C

The effects to this species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D

The effects to this species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering the cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of MacDougal’s aletes although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this 

species than alternative A. Plan components for Ponderosa Pine and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub ERU, as well as the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest type provide better 

protection for these habitats and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D have a higher viability effectiveness than alternative A, primarily because 

they contain plan components for riparian forests and updated plan language for at-risk and rare 

species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

651

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Metcalfe’s tick trefoil, a Southwestern Region sensitive species, 

includes portions of New Mexico and Arizona. It is thought that Metcalfe’s tick trefoil is 

widespread in portions of Arizona, but it is not well documented (New Mexico Rare Plant 

Technical Council 1999). On the Coconino NF, documented locations of Metcalfe’s tick trefoil 

include along Huckaby Trail, Fossil Creek, and West Clear Creek Wilderness.

Habitat

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil grows on rocky slopes and canyons. Occurrences of the species are in 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is a threat because of this species’ limited distribution on the Coconino NF. Disturbance to 

plants is a concern because its habitats can be popular places for dispersed recreation. The 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At-risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants.

Environmental Consequences

Table 103 summarizes the viability analysis for Metcalf’s tick-trefoil. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

652

Table 103. Analysis summary for Metcalfe’s tick trefoil

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Metcalfe’s tick 

trefoil 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

H 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1

PJES Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 

Management Effect 3 = Plan components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat or habitat 

elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. Where 

applicable, plan components 

address some identified fine filter 

species threats and needs.

2 = Plan components maintain or 

improve habitat quality by

maintaining or improving 

protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area

* F1= Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, direction to use best management practices, and would employ either 

filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones (remaining alternatives) to protect water 

quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment 

deposits, or blockages. These plan components would maintain or improve water conditions and 

habitat for riparian species. See 1987 Plan, pages 23, 71, 72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-RipType-O1, FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2, FW-Water-G-4. 

Instream flow water rights would be maintained and procured at similar levels under all 

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74 and 206 and FW-Water-G-3). Procurement of instream flow 

water rights would improve the extent of uninterrupted streamflows across NFS lands, thereby, 

providing greater aquatic and riparian habitat continuity and resilience. 

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil occurs in two established wildernesses, West Clear Creek and Fossil Creek.

Both of these are major tributaries to the Verde River, are rugged and remote and have similar 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

653

geologic formations. Plan language for designated wilderness contributes to the viability of this 

species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems are functioning properly and support a natural 

assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities and 

permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for wilderness 

and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values from being 

compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Some locations of Metcalf’s tick trefoil are in segments of West Clear Creek and Fossil Creek 

that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Metcalf’s tick 

trefoil and its habitat would benefit from plan language that would manage recreation and other 

activities along eligible rivers and their corridors to protect and enhance the free-flowing 

condition and outstandingly remarkable values consistent with the classification (SA-WSR-DC-1, 

3, SA-WSR-DC-G-1). Alternative A lacks guidance for rivers determined to be eligible for 

designation as wild and scenic, but policy directs that rivers found to be eligible and suitable must 

be protected as far as possible to the same extent as a designated study river (FSM 2354.21).

Alternative A

Table 103 shows that under alternative A, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would 

remain in good condition. Static trends would be associated with the Oak Creek 5th code and 

West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. The trend would be static or moving slowly toward desired 

conditions except in the Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek and Oak Creek 5th code HUCs and 

portions of Fossil Creek where recreation impacts are high. Areas of private land would remain 

static as well. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition, but would trend away from 

desired conditions due to departure in the fire return interval and increases in trees and shrubs.

Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition with these species 

and facilitate a higher fire severity than these plants evolved with, thereby, degrading the habitat.

As shown in table 103, the overall likelihood that habitat quality on the forest would be a limiting 

factor for Metcalf’s tick-trefoil is moderate-high to high, depending on the habitat. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) and 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings 

are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 103 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, which means that 

plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for some

habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species than 

the other alternatives. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, alternative A would maintain or improve 

riparian forests because it has a focus on improving riparian areas in any condition, preventing 

damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels, and restoring degraded riparian areas 

to good condition as soon as possible (1987 Plan, pages 65-8, 172, 174, 206-8). Alternative A has 

guidance to construct 10 miles of fences per decade for the first two decades where necessary to 

protect key wet meadows, wetlands, and riparian regeneration from grazing (1987 Plan, page 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

654

175). Other protective language includes the following: Only beneficial new special uses are 

allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as utility line or roads crossing streamcourses are 

designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). 

Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent resource damage utilizing methods that 

minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats (1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, 

acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high priority (1987 Plan, pages 177, 185). 

The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation in some areas, to protect riparian values 

(1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 206-22, 206-26, 206-39). Plan language for the Flagstaff/ Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Area guides managers to consider road closure or obliteration when there are 

threatened and damaged riparian areas or roads within wetlands that reduce hydrologic function 

(1987 Plan, 206-70, 206-71). Other beneficial plan language would protect Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest by amending allotment management plans to contribute toward 

achieving satisfactory riparian condition (1987 Plan, pages 73, 175). Alternative A would also 

maintain 80 percent crown cover, 80 percent emergent vegetation cover, and three age classes of 

woody riparian species (1987 Plan, page 174). 

However, plan language in alternative A lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, 

and function of the different types of riparian areas, and relative to natural disturbances and 

current science. Consequently, this alternative has less potential for improvement to riparian 

condition compared to the other alternatives. The trend on some portions of stream riparian areas 

would remain static due to impacts from other resource areas (e.g., recreation, livestock) and lack 

of specificity with regard to forest plan guidance. Refer to Watershed section, volume I, for 

additional information on Watersheds and Riparian Systems. 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this management effect rating is because alternative A does 

not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types which differ from each other in 

composition, structure, and processes. The Plan provides little direction on desired conditions for 

these ERUs as it is lumped into the broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper, and plan 

direction varies only by slope. Consequently, vegetation structure would not be equitably 

distributed across the landscape.

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil has been located along the popular Huckaby Trail on the Red Rock Ranger 

District. Recreational use such as hiking poses a minor risk of disturbance to this species and its 

habitat. In alternative A, this trail is in the Neighborwoods (MA 24). Guidance for trails in this 

area focuses on reducing user conflicts with private property and encouraging the use of 

designated trails (1987 Plan, pages 206-40 to 206-42). Use of designated trails could eliminate 

damage to the species (crushing) or its habitat (accelerated soil erosion or soil compaction). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 103 shows that under alternative B (modified), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 

would remain in good condition and slowly move toward desired conditions except portions of 

Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would remain static in areas of high recreation use. It would 

improve faster than alternative A in the Beaver Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek 5th code HUCs. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition and would continue to trend 

away from desired condition, like alternative A. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

655

As shown in table 103, the overall likelihood that this species would be limited by the quality of 

its habitat on the forest is moderate-high to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) and Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for both habitats.

This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality 

by maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area. 

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, this rating is primarily because there are 

updated desired conditions and guidelines that support composition, structure, and function of 

riparian forests (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 to 4). In addition, riparian 

functional condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions manage for 

vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-DC1, 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). This would be beneficial if restoration occurs in 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest or its associated watersheds. More site-specific 

aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and 

Plant section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 

For Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this management effect rating is because alternative B 

(modified) provides desired conditions, objectives and guidance specific to the each type of 

pinyon juniper on the forest. Management direction would promote properly functioning 

ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic 

disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems thereby 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU 

specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5 

to 9; FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1, 2, 3, 5). 

Alternative B (modified) provides for well-marked and maintained trails and promotes trail use 

that remains on the established trail surface and where damage to resources is minimal and within 

the ability of the forest to mitigate (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-1, 4, 11). This guidance provides better 

protection for Metcalfe’s tick trefoil than alternative A by adding desired condition language 

about minimal damage to associated resources. 

Rarity is a risk for Metcalf’s tick-trefoil. Alternative B (modified) has components that address 

rarity better than alternative A. Forestwide guidance in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides desired 

conditions for properly functioning ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that 

support native plants and animals (FW-WFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components 

for sensitive and/or endemic species to carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G10). These components are complementary to the plan components in the sections for All 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

656

Ecosystems and All Terrestrial Ecosystems, and provide additional assurance for the viability of 

these species. Additional information and analysis is discussed under the At-risk topic in the 

Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

Alternative C

The effects to this species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D 

The effects to this species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Metcalf’s tick-trefoil, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for Metcalf’s tick-trefoil, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A, primarily 

because they contain plan components for riparian forests and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 

ERU and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. 

Mogollon thistle

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Mogollon thistle, a Southwestern Region sensitive species, is a narrow endemic confined to a few 

springs on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District. The distribution of this endemic species is limited 

to four documented locations. It is a subspecies of Cirsium parryi, which is much more 

widespread. 

Habitat

All documented locations are associated with springs in Dane, Dane Springs, and Yeager Canyons 

on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District, Coconino NF (Goodwin 2005). 

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to this Forest Service sensitive species due to its restricted distribution.

Non-native invasive plants are also a threat to Mogollon thistle.

Environmental Consequences

The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At-risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about the habitats.

Table 104 summarizes the viability analysis for Mogollon thistle. This table was developed using 

the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information 

on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species is limited by 

habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

657

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow. 

Table 104. Analysis summary for Mogollon thistle

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Mogollon 

thistle

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = F1* 

Springs Good**, toward H Good**, toward H 

Management Effect Springs = 4: Decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management 

or lack of management that result 

from plan components. 

Springs = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat. 

** For analysis of these species, springs were considered in good condition. However, some springs could be in poor or 

fair condition depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Alternative A

Spring condition can vary from good to poor, depending on access, protection, and the degree of 

development of the individual spring. The springs supporting occurrences of Mogollon thistle are 

remote and hard to access. Table 104 shows that under alternative A spring habitat for Mogollon 

thistle would generally be in good condition with a trend toward desired condition. 

As shown in table 104, the likelihood that habitat quality on the forest would be a limiting factor 

for Mogollon thistle is high. This likelihood was derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 

with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for springs (moderate for good quality) (table 9 

in volume IIa). 

The management effect row in table 104 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 4 for springs, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

658

which means there is a decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. 

Alternative A provides little direction on specific desired conditions for springs. 

Springs are important habitat for Mogollon thistle. Guidance for springs in alternative A is 

included in the Riparian section of the plan (MA 12 Riparian and Open Water). However, spring 

management and restoration direction is nonexistent or vague and does not provide clear desired 

conditions or objectives to maintain or restore toward desired condition of properly functioning, 

resilient spring riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Alternative B (modified)

The springs supporting occurrences of Mogollon thistle are remote and hard to access. Table 104

shows that under alternative B (modified), like alternative A, springs would generally be in good 

condition with a trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 104, the overall likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor 

for Mogollon thistle is high, like alternative A. This likelihood was derived by combining this 

species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for springs (moderate for 

good quality) (table 9 in volume IIa). 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for springs. This 

means that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element 

occurrences in the plan area

Furthermore, table 104 shows that alternative B (modified) addresses rarity better than 

Alternative A. Mogollon thistle is a narrow endemic. Alternative B (modified) has components 

that address rarity better than alternative A. This is due to more forestwide guidance to address 

rare habitats and species. The discussion on At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section above covers the plan components that will support managing for sustainable 

populations of native plant and animal species, improve conditions for Southwestern Region 

sensitive species and help provide habitat for self-sustaining populations. The components in 

alternative B (modified) address these issues better than alternative A.

Plan components for springs are updated in alternative B (modified); describe goals for 

composition, structure, and processes associated with springs; and provide clearer direction for 

managers compared to alternative A (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1 and 5). A particularly beneficial desired 

condition would provide the physical and biological habitat components needed by narrowly 

endemic species like Mogollon thistle. An objective to restore riparian function to at least 25 

springs identified as not in proper functioning condition during each 10-year period during the 

life of the plan could benefit Mogollon thistles if restoration occurs within occupied or potential 

habitat (FW-Rip-Spr-O-1). Guidelines would require managers to maintain or improve spring 

discharge, maintain or procure water rights, protect the spring source, and maintain or improve 

soil and riparian function and native vegetation. These guidelines would maintain and protect 

habitat for this species (FW-Rip-Spr-G-1 to 4). 

Alternative C

The effects to this species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

659

Alternative D

The effects to this species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Mogollon thistle, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for Mogollon thistle, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A, primarily 

because the plan components for springs provides better protection for these habitats and updated 

plan language for at-risk and rare species. 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, a Southwestern Region sensitive species, is endemic to northern and 

north-central Arizona 

Habitat

The habitat for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort is oak and pine forests, open pine and pine-pinyon 

woodlands, and among junipers (HDMS 2004). On the Coconino NF, it occurs in the Semi-desert 

Grasslands, Interior Chaparral, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and 

Ponderosa Pine ERUs.

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to this species due to its restricted distribution. Disturbance to plants is 

also a risk from management activities, such as vegetation treatments, fire, and road work. The 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more detail about At-risk Species and 

Disturbance to Plants.

Environmental Consequences

Table 105 summarizes the viability analysis for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort. This table was 

developed using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It

includes information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that 

these species are limited by habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

660

Table 105. Analysis summary for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Mt. 

Dellenbaugh 

SDG Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward

VH

sandwort

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F1*

IC Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

Short term: M 

Long term: H

Good, away M 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

M-H Low and high 

objectives: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

M-H 

PJES Fair, away M-H Fair, away M-H 

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: H

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Management effect SDG, PJG, PJES and PP = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, maintenance, 

and restoration to some 

occurrences. 

IC = 4: Decline in habitat quality as 

a result of management or lack of 

management that result from plan 

components. Plan components 

may not exist or may be few. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F1 = Very rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a very small portion of its habitat. 

Common to All Alternatives

This species is considered to be rare and/or at-risk because there are few populations known and 

they are vulnerable to stochastic events. Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species 

viability by managing for sustainable populations of native species and improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 

95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 

206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

661

FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant 

Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort occurs in the West Clear Creek Wilderness. Plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional protection to this species, and would contribute to the 

viability of this species in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning 

properly and would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness 

area; management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward

desired conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to 

prevent wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SAWild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 105 shows that under alternative A, Semi-desert Grasslands would remain in poor condition 

and trend away from desired conditions due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and 

increased fragmentation from urbanization. 

Interior Chaparral would remain in good condition in the short term, but move to fair condition in 

the long term, trending away from desired condition due to the threats of non-native invasive 

weeds and uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass would remain in fair condition, but would trend toward desired 

conditions in the short term due to expected mechanical treatments and burning using wildfire for 

resource objectives. However, the trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU is expected to 

move away from desired conditions in the long term because the treatment level is insufficient to 

offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. As a result, understory 

abundance and diversity would decrease, decreasing the potential for surface fires. Fire exclusion

would alter structural stage; stand age; canopy cover; mosaic pattern; fuel composition; and fire 

frequency, severity, and pattern. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition, but would trend away from 

desired conditions due to departure in the fire return interval and increases in trees and shrubs.

Increased density of trees, shrubs, and understory could increase competition with these species 

and facilitate a higher fire severity than these plants evolved with, thereby degrading the habitat.

Ponderosa Pine would remain in poor condition in the short term at the low treatment objectives 

(50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres prescribed burn), then improve to fair condition and 

trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The improved vegetation structure and 

composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the high treatment objectives 

(260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation quality would improve 

faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because more acres would be treated. It 

would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the short and long term. 

Cliffs would be in good condition with a static trend related to desired conditions. 

As shown in table 105, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for this 

species is moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 

habitat: Semi-desert Grassland (high), Interior Chaparral (low in short term, moderate in long 

term), Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

662

moderate), and Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low 

treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective). 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Semi-desert 

Grassland, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Ponderosa Pine, 

which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives. For Semi-desert Grassland, this rating is 

primarily because alternative A provides outdated direction for Semi-desert Grasslands (in the 

Verde Valley MA). This outdated direction emphasizes range and forage improvement rather than 

composition, structure, and natural processes as in the desired conditions. Alternative A does not 

expressly acknowledge the different types of grasslands or their differing composition, structure, 

and processes. Vegetation quality is expected to trend away from desired conditions, primarily 

due to the lack of plan objectives in this alternative, thus tree and shrub cover would continue to 

increase and understory would decrease in abundance and vigor. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this rating is because 

alternative A does not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types, which differ in 

composition, structure, and processes. The plan provides little direction on desired conditions for 

these ERUs as it is lumped into the broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper, and plan 

direction varies only by slope. Consequently, vegetation structure, including seed-bearing pinyon 

trees would not be equitably distributed across the landscape.

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort. Ponderosa pine is mostly managed for Mexican spotted owls or northern 

goshawks under forestwide direction. Areas managed for Mexican spotted owl PACs and 

nest/roost characteristics tend to have higher canopy closure than areas outside of these areas.

Understory in these areas may be less abundant or vigorous due to the canopy closure. Areas 

outside of those managed for nest/roost characteristics and Mexican spotted owl habitat outside of 

PACs could have better habitat for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort in areas where natural canopy gap 

processes occur and natural variation includes small openings. See 1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 

65-4, 65-5. 

Ponderosa pine areas outside of Mexican spotted owl habitat are managed for northern goshawks. 

Plan direction for northern goshawks would maintain habitat for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort 

because Ponderosa Pine would be managed for a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and 

understory); 40 percent of the areas in young forest, seedling/sapling or grass/forb/shrub structure 

would not have canopy cover guidelines; and there would be more openings than areas managed 

for denser stand conditions. See 1987 Plan, page 65-7, 65-9, and 65-10. 

Additional management direction for ponderosa pine is in Management Area 3 (Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer less than 40 percent slope) and this direction has both positive and negative 

aspects. Direction to broadcast seed following burns using a high production multi-growing 

season species to attain a balanced composition of cool and warm season forage species could 

have a negative effect on Mt. Dellenbaugh due to competition for nutrients and water with nonnative species that could be a part of this seed mix. However, language to maintain open 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

663

meadows in ponderosa pine, eliminate invading overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could 

improve habitat for this species. See 1987 Plan, page 120. 

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 93, 94, 137. 

The management effect rating is classified as a 4 for Interior Chaparral, which means there is a 

decline in habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. Alternative A provides no direction 

on specific desired conditions for interior chaparral. The Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem-wide plan 

direction includes some beneficial general guidance, but it only covers a small proportion of 

Interior Chaparral ERU. Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem-wide plan direction includes provisions to 

conserve or restore natural ecosystem disturbance patterns and function and to promote the 

natural ecological role of fire within the constraints of human health and safety while the mosaic 

of vegetative conditions reduce the occurrence of catastrophic fires (1987 Plan, pages 206-9, 206-

11, 206-19). Alternative A includes direction that impedes managing wildfire for resource 

objectives in wilderness and wildland-urban interface. Managing wildfire for resource objectives 

is one of the tools used to restore natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire. These impediments limit the forest’s ability to reintroduce fire in these areas. This negatively 

affects interior chaparral, which is a fire-adapted ecosystem and increases the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire in Interior Chaparral in these areas. It also negatively affects ponderosa pine, 

a fire-dependent ecosystem, and the two pinyon juniper types for the same reasons.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 105 shows that like alternative A, Semi-desert Grassland ERU would remain in poor 

condition, but unlike alternative A, this ERU would trend slightly toward desired conditions due 

to plan objectives that would restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grassland 

ERU during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1). The plan 

objective would remove tree and shrub cover and create more open conditions that could favor 

this species. 

Interior Chaparral ERU is expected to remain in good condition with a trend away from the 

desired condition. The presence and increase of invasive plant species could reinforce the trend 

away from desired conditions with respect to vegetation structure and composition. Fire return 

interval is expected to remain moderately departed and trending away from the desired 

conditions. Vegetative quality may improve by managing wildfires for resource objectives when 

burning conditions permit (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2), an option that was not available within 

wildland-urban interface under alternative A.

Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would be the same as alternative A. The condition of Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass would remain fair, but the trend would be toward desired conditions in the 

short term, then trend slowly away from desired conditions in the long term because the treatment 

levels (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1 and 2) are not sufficient to offset the negative effects of excess 

regeneration and closing canopies. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

664

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would remain in fair condition and would continue to trend 

away from desired condition, like alternative A.

The condition and trend for the Ponderosa Pine ERU would be similar to alternative A, remaining 

in poor condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term under low treatment 

objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres prescribed fire). However, in the short term 

under the high vegetation treatment objectives (260,050 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres 

prescribed fire) and in the long term under both the low and high vegetation treatment objectives, 

the condition would improve to fair and trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 105, the likelihood that this species would be limited by the quality of its 

habitat on the forest is moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: Semi-desert Grassland (high), Interior Chaparral (low), Pinyon Juniper 

with Grass (low-moderate), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate), and Ponderosa Pine 

(moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate 

for high treatment objective). 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as 2 for all the habitats 

associated with these species. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For Semi-desert Grassland, this rating is due to this alternative distinguishing between the 

grassland habitats on the forest and containing explicit and updated direction on the composition, 

structure, and processes for these ERUs (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-4, 8), compared to alternative 

A, which has a more forage-based approach. Alternative B (modified) also provides plan 

components to promote properly functioning and resilient ecosystems, promote characteristic 

disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and promote balance between 

desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, 

furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). ERUspecific direction would provide for a variety of native species with varying seral stages in natural 

patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-GrassDC-1 to 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). 

For Interior Chaparral ERU, this rating is due to alternative B (modified)’s specific desired 

conditions and guidelines for this ERU, whereas these are absent in alternative A. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, this rating is because these 

alternatives clearly distinguish between different Pinyon Juniper types on the forest and provides 

desired conditions, objectives and guidance that are specific to the each type. Management 

direction would promote properly functioning ecosystems that are resilient to natural disturbances 

and climate change; promote characteristic disturbances and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

disturbances, and promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and 

properly functioning ecosystems, thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC1 to 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2) ERU specific direction would provide for a variety of native 

species with varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support 

natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5 to 9; FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1, 2, 3, 5). There is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

665

additional direction for this ERU within the wildland-urban interface. Within wildland-urban 

interface, fire and vegetation management would favor low-intensity surface fires despite the 

historic fire regime that favors high-severity (and typically high-intensity) fires (FW-WUI-DC-8). 

This is intended to mitigate the risks to surrounding communities. A particularly beneficial plan 

component promotes management of plant litter and coarse woody debris in all pinyon juniper 

types to create conditions necessary for pinyon seed germination and survival (FW-TerrERU-PJDC-15). 

For Ponderosa Pine, this rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological 

conditions and composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast 

to alternative A (Reynolds et al. 2013). Alternative B (modified) promotes an open uneven-aged 

structure similar to historic conditions, yet it also has provisions for denser areas such as on steep 

slopes and in canyons (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8, 13). The treatment objectives and desired 

conditions for the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the need for restoring the fire regime and canopy 

conditions toward desired conditions. Implementation of these objectives and removal of 

restrictions on use of wildfires with resource objectives would lead to more open stand conditions 

and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of habitat loss for 

species such as Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort. 

Rarity is a risk for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort. Alternatives B (modified) has components that 

address rarity better than alternative A. Forestwide guidance in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides 

desired conditions for properly functioning ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that 

support native plants and animals (FW-WFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components 

for sensitive and/or endemic species to carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G10). These components are complementary to the components for all ecosystems and all 

terrestrial ecosystems and provide additional assurance for the viability of these species. 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the At-risk topic in the Wildlife and Plant 

Topics and Issues section.

Alternative C

The effects to this species under alternative C would be the same as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D

The effects to this species under alternative D would be the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, although individuals may be impacted by sitespecific activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward 

Federal listing for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative 

A because plan components for Ponderosa Pine, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub, and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs provide better protection for these habitats 

and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

666

Northern goshawk

Northern goshawks are a Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Affected Environment 

Goshawks prey on large to medium-sized birds and mammals that they capture on the ground. A 

long-term demographic study of a northern goshawk population on the Kaibab Plateau found that 

the population was stable over a 20-year period with a variable environment. The best breeding 

years were coincident with a record-long wet period and the worst breeding year was during the 

last of 3-year record drought. Six high-severity fires occurred during the study. The future status 

of the population was acknowledged to be uncertain due to “declining trends in breeding 

frequency, uncertain status of non-breeding adults, extensive temporal and spatial variation in 

breeding and high frequency of immigrant recruits to the breeding population.” The study 

concluded that “if the century-long decline in precipitation persists, especially at the increased 

rate seen since 1980, and manifests as deeper droughts, diminished wet periods, and weaker 

pulses in forest productivity, then the...goshawk population would be expected to show 

unambiguous evidence of decline, including reduced goshawk reproduction and survival, reduced 

frequency of immigration, and further habitat loss to catastrophic fire” (Reynolds et al. 2017). 

These trends would also be expected on the Coconino NF because precipitation trends tend to be 

regional, the forest shares similar habitats with the Kaibab Plateau, and in fact, is drier and lower 

elevation, so the potential of catastrophic fire could also be high. 

Distribution

Northern goshawks are found in forested habitats throughout the northern hemisphere. They 

breed in high forested mountains and plateaus in Arizona, usually above 6,000 feet. The northern 

goshawk occurs on the Flagstaff and Mogollon Ranger Districts. 

Habitat

Northern goshawks are associated with Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs. Additional information on these ERUs is available in 

the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Habitat includes any associated pine or mixed conifer stringers 

that may extend below the rim. The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety 

of seral stages. It prefers stands of intermediate canopy cover, typically comprised of mature and 

older forests for nesting, while more open areas are used for foraging, allowing them to more 

easily see and pursue their prey. Large trees, snags, logs, downed woody material, and with a 

diverse herbaceous and understory component, are important habitat attributes for northern 

goshawks and their prey.

There are 83 goshawk post-fledging family areas on the Coconino NF, including 3 areas that are 

shared with other forests. Current total acreage of post-fledging areas managed by the Coconino 

NF is about 54,686 acres. 

Risk Factors

The primary species threat is disturbance during the breeding season that may result in failed 

reproduction or fewer young. Relative rarity of the species is also a concern. A 2013 report on 

Coconino NF management indicator species concluded that the population trend of northern 

goshawks on the forest was stable to declining (USDA Forest Service 2013). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

667

Environmental Consequences

Table 106 summarizes the viability analysis for northern goshawk. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species’ viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.

Table 106. Analysis summary for northern goshawk

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and status

Habitat Habitat condition 

and trend

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Northern 

goshawk 

(Sensitive) 

F Rank = 

F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective long 

term: L-M 

High objective: LM 

MCFF Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at long 

term 

M Low objective: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at long 

term 

High objective: 

Good, toward at 

short term then 

Good, static at 

long term 

Low objective: M 

High objective: L

MCIF Fair, away at short 

term then Poor,

away at long term

Short term: M 

Long term: MH 

Fair, static M 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the plan 

area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

668

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). Furthermore, plan language in all alternatives contributes to the viability of 

northern goshawks by providing guidance for nesting, foraging, and post-fledging habitat. See 

1987 Plan, pages 65-8 and 9, FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-12, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-9, FWTerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-8, and FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-10. See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information.

All alternatives would provide for large trees and large snags. Large trees are used by various 

prey species and for nesting. Large snags are important habitat for snag-dependent and cavitydependent prey species. Plan language in alternative A retains snags in Mexican spotted owl

PACs, steep slopes, restricted habitat (mixed conifer, pine-oak and riparian forests outside of 

PACs and steep slopes), and in northern goshawk habitat (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-5, 65-

7). Plan language promotes snags 18 inches d.b.h. or greater outside of goshawk post-fledging 

family areas with 3 snags per acre in spruce-fir and mixed conifer, 2 snags per acre in ponderosa 

pine; greater density of snags near meadows, riparian areas, and key water sources; and protection 

of snags during fuel treatments (1987 Plan, pages 65-9, 70-3, 95). Other large snags would be 

provided in potential nest sites for osprey (which overlaps northern goshawk habitat in some 

areas) (1987 Plan, page 124) and large trees and snags would be protected during fuel treatments 

in the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis Area (1987 Plan, page 206-73, 206-101). Current 

and future large trees are promoted by reducing competition and protecting them during 

prescribed fires (1987 Plan, pages 65-5, 206-73, and 206-75). 

Plan language in alternatives B (modified), C, and D also promotes snags 18 inches or greater at 

d.b.h. at an average 1 to 2 snags per acre, old-growth structure (include old trees, logs, coarse 

woody debris, and snags) throughout the landscape, characteristic disturbances to produce snags, 

development of old growth structure where it is lacking, protection of existing and developing 

old-growth structure, and preference for presettlement trees and large tall snags near openings and 

within groups (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5, 6, 9, G-1, 2, 3, 5; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-2, 3, 4; 

FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 3; FW-TerrERU-MC-All-G-2, 3). 

Plan language in all alternatives would provide for large logs and for coarse woody debris. These 

two habitat elements provide cover for goshawk prey and are important for nutrient cycling and 

maintaining soil and forest productivity. Plan language promotes wide distribution and retention 

of coarse woody debris, including logs, to maintain long-term soil productivity and to contribute 

to the resiliency and adaptability of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change (1987 Plan, pages 

65-2, 65-5, 65-7, 65-9, 65-10, 95, 185, 206-10, FW-Soil-DC-2, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2, FWTerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-3, 5, 6, and G-1, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-2, 

3, 5, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 3, 4, and 7, FW-TerrERU-MC-All-G-2, and FW-WUI-G-1). 

Beneficial plan language in all alternatives includes seasonal closures, and implementation of 

timing restrictions to reduce disturbance to northern goshawks during the nesting season. These 

would have the indirect positive effects of promoting population recruitment and survival (1987 

Plan, pages 65-7, 65-11, 206-73; FW-WFP-G-8). All alternatives have areas that are closed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

669

seasonally to provide recreation opportunities in areas undisturbed by vehicles and/or to provide 

quiet areas for wildlife. These areas total about 45, 962 acres, include northern goshawk habitat, 

and are existing closure orders: Pine Grove, Rattlesnake, Woods, and Woody Ridge (1987 Plan, 

page 59, 206-114, the Off-Road Driving Management Plan for Land and Resource Management 

Planning (Revised May 1991); FW-Rec-Disp-G-6, MA-PineBelt-DC-5, 6, 7, 8, MA-LkMary-DC4, MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 4, and MA-LkMary-S-1). 

All alternatives have guidelines that would protect the habitat for this species in the vicinity of 

Walnut Canyon. These guidelines would be beneficial for the survival and reproduction of 

northern goshawks and would benefit the habitat for their prey species. Alternative A includes a 

guideline to protect the natural and cultural resources in the wildland-urban interface and the 

lands surrounding the (Walnut Canyon) national monument (1987 Plan, page 206-109). 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D include a guideline for activities and uses on the forest to be 

managed to protect cultural sites and to preserve habitat for disturbance-sensitive species both on 

the forest and within Walnut Canyon National Monument (MA-Walnut-G-1). 

About 31,087 acres of Ponderosa Pine, 778 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and 

8,193 acres of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire are in designated wilderness. Plan language for 

designated wilderness provides additional areas of low disturbance (no mechanized or motorized 

use), so would contribute to goshawk viability in all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would 

be functioning properly and would support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to 

the wilderness area; management activities and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or 

move toward desired conditions for wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be 

managed to prevent wilderness values from being compromised. However, because motorized 

and mechanized use in wilderness is not allowed in designated wilderness, needed mechanical or 

restoration treatments that require motorized use would be precluded and could result in increased 

risk of uncharacteristic fire (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-WildG-1, 2). There are about 40,058 acres of goshawk habitat in designated wilderness, which 

represents about 4.5 percent of northern goshawk habitat on the forest. 

Alternative A

Table 106 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. The distribution and diversity of understory vegetation are 

expected to increase where open stands are created, such as in areas treated for restoration. The 

shift to more open canopy under all alternatives would improve the abundance and vigor of 

understory vegetation, conditions for Gambel oak and aspen, and cover and food for northern 

goshawk prey species. The increases in uneven-aged, multistoried stand structure, particularly in 

medium and very large trees, over the long term would maintain favorable conditions for northern 

goshawks and their prey. 

Table 106 also shows that Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire would remain in fair condition and 

trend toward desired conditions in the short term. In the long term, the trend would become static 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

670

as treatment levels would not be able to keep up with growth and regeneration; seedlings and 

saplings would make gains through excess regeneration where openings are created and medium 

and large trees would lose ground in open stands as canopy gaps are filled in. 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would remain in fair condition and trend away from desired 

conditions in the short term due contradictory direct related to the management of wildfires in 

wilderness areas. In the long term, the condition would become poor and the trend would 

continue to move away from desired conditions. 

As shown in table 106, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality on the 

forest is low-moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term 

for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire (moderate), and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate in short term and 

high in the long term) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be 

within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the Ponderosa 

Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs, which 

means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the viability of this species 

than the other alternatives. 

Old-growth structure (old large trees and snags) is an important habitat element for northern 

goshawks. Alternative A contains outdated language for old growth as well as updated language 

that reflects more recent science. The outdated plan language would allocate old growth as 100- 

to 300-acre stands over no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem management area 

(1987 Plan, page 129). Some of the updated language would have allocations consisting of 

landscape percentages meeting old-growth conditions and not specific acres. This former strategy 

would result in lower habitat quality for large tree and snag-dependent species compared to 

alternative B (modified), because it would result in less vertical structure and age class diversity; 

tend to maintain a more continuous canopy that would be conducive to crown fires; and result in 

more even-aged conditions. This structure and age class diversity does not reflect frequent lowseverity fires characteristic of Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERUs and 

does not reflect desired conditions. During wildfires in these 100- to 300-acre areas, there is 

likely to be more area in mixed severity condition with 25 percent to 75 percent loss of dominant 

overstory, compared to a loss of 25 percent or less, which is characteristic of low-severity fires. 

Old-growth stands would be less resilient to endemic levels of disturbances. Habitat in these 100- 

to 300-acre areas would be at higher risk from uncharacteristic fire and have higher susceptibility 

to insects and disease compared to alternative B (modified). Uncharacteristic fire could remove 

nesting or prey habitat by incinerating large trees and snags. Die-off from insects and disease 

could result in a beneficial short-term increase in snags, but have a negative long-term effect of 

reducing the number of large live trees, and losing snags through wind throw because the stands 

may be opened up and more susceptible to wind events. 

In addition to the plan language under Common to All Alternatives, plan language in 

Management Area 3 (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer less than 40 percent slope) promotes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

671

managing for an average of 200 snags (including potential snags) per 100 acres over at least 

50 percent of the forested land within 10K blocks but minimum diameter for a ponderosa 

pine/mixed conifer snag is greater than 12 inches d.b.h. (1987 Plan, page 126, 127, 143) which at 

the minimum size may be less suitable for prey species. Plan language also states that snags 

would generally not be available for firewood unless designated because of being surplus to 

wildlife needs (1987 Plan, page 126), and recently dead and poor risk trees and snags with certain 

characteristics in excess of planned snag densities may be harvested (1987 Plan, pages 130, 132, 

147). The 10K block plan language would assure that snags are distributed across the landscape; 

however, harvesting excess snags and retaining small snags may negatively impact the size and 

quality of snags retained on the landscape. This approach does not account for the increases in 

fuelwood demand on the forest or illegal cutting, and this approach is outdated because 10K 

blocks are no longer used for analysis. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in these ERUs, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, and 165) and the language to manage wildfires for resource 

objectives in wilderness impedes the use of this tool (1987 Plan, pages 111–112). This plan 

language limits the restoration of fire as a natural process in the wildland-urban interface and in 

wilderness, and canopy cover and shrub and tree density would be expected to increase in these 

areas. There would also be increased potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban 

interface and wilderness portions of these ERUs. This is particularly problematic where the 

landownership pattern is intermixed between public and private ownerships. 

Plan language in all alternatives would contribute to the survival and successful reproduction of 

northern goshawks by designating post-fledging family areas, nest areas, and replacement nest 

areas. To provide habitat while young northern goshawks are maturing, northern goshawk postfledging family areas of approximately 420 acres in size would be designated surrounding nest 

areas. A minimum of six nest areas (known or replacement) would be located per territory and 

each nest area should generally be about 30 acres in size. Nest areas and surrounding postfledging areas would be delineated to include the best available northern goshawk habitat and 

would generally comprise about 600 acres. Post-fledging family areas would have higher canopy 

cover and smaller opening sizes than areas outside of post-fledging family areas. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 65-7, 65-9, 65-10, FW-FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-12, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-9, FWTerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-8, FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-10, and WFP-G-14. 

Approximately 48 percent of the post-fledging areas overlap Mexican spotted owl habitat in the 

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer ERUs and are managed with an emphasis on Mexican spotted 

owl habitat because threatened species take priority over sensitive species. In these same 

vegetation types, approximately 19 percent of the landscape outside of post-fledging areas is 

managed with an emphasis on Mexican spotted owl habitat as well. This means that these 

proportions of northern goshawk habitat are generally managed at higher canopy cover levels and 

with smaller openings than goshawk habitat outside of Mexican spotted owl habitat. Under 

alternative A, where northern goshawk habitat overlaps with Mexican spotted owl protected 

activity centers, only trees smaller than 9 inches in diameter at breast height may be cut (1987 

Plan, page 65-2). Consequently, this creates more dense areas that are at higher risk of 

uncharacteristic fire, insects and disease, and density-related tree mortality than goshawk habitat 

that does not overlap with protected activity centers. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

672

Alternative A uses vegetative structural stages (VSS) to describe northern goshawk habitat. Each 

vegetation structural stage coarsely describes size classes of overstory vegetation, canopy cover 

categories, and whether the vegetation structural stage is single or multistory (1987 Plan, pages 

65-8 to 65-11). This method of describing habitat is no longer used. A crosswalk between 

vegetation structural stages and the modeled vegetation states is located in an appendix in the 

Vegetation and Fire Report (USDA Forest Service 2016c). 

Alternative A recommends using site quality to identify and manage dispersal post-fledging 

family areas and nest habitat at 2.0- to 2.5-mile spacing across the landscape (1987 Plan, 

page 65-9). This language would assure that suitable nest and post-fledging family area habitat 

would be available for immigrating individuals and dispersing young. 

Alternative A also requires goshawk surveys 0.5 mile beyond analysis boundaries prior to 

habitat-modifying activities (1987 Plan, page 65-7). This would assure that design features to 

manage or protect goshawk habitat can be incorporated early in the planning process.

Alternative A has language to follow approved or more recent conservation strategies or 

assessments only for certain species: for bald eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-100), Arizona 

leatherflower (hairy clematis) (1987 Plan, page 65-7), Arizona bugbane (1987 Plan, page 206-10) 

and Flagstaff pennyroyal (1987 Plan, page 65 and 206-10), but lacks this direction for most other 

species. For goshawks, there is direction to refer to USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-217 (Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern 

United States) and The Northern Goshawk: Ecology and Management for supplemental and 

scientific information on goshawk ecology and management (1987 Plan, page 65-8).

Alternative B (modified)

Table 106 shows that the Ponderosa Pine ERU would have the same condition and trend as 

alternative A. 

Like alternative A, under the low treatment objectives (2,900 acres mechanical, 8,000 acres 

prescribed fire) Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition with a 

trend toward desired conditions in the short term. In the long term under the low treatment 

objectives, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire would be in fair condition with a static trend

relative to desired conditions. Under the high treatment objectives (15,000 acres mechanical, 

8,000 acres prescribed fire), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would improve to good 

condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term, then a static trend relative to 

desired conditions in the long term. In addition, at least 7,500 acres of Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire would be managed using wildfires for resource objectives within the natural fire 

regime, during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-O-1, 2, 3). 

The Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition, but the trend would 

improve to static. Although there are no plan objectives for treatment in this ERU, activities and 

uses would follow the revised plan and would maintain or move toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 106, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality on the 

forest is low to moderate. These likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of 

F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Ponderosa Pine (moderate in 

short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high 

treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (moderate under the low treatment 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

673

objective, low under the high treatment objective), and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 

(moderate). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations 

for the habitat. 

The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats in this group, which means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. For the Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire ERUs, this rating is due to this alternative containing updated direction on the 

composition, structure, and processes of these ERUs based on current science and removing 

outdated material Plan components are discussed further below and in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section by ERU.

Plan language promotes natural levels of disturbance, frequent low-severity fires, old-growth 

structure distributed throughout the landscape, and the presence of uneven-aged forest with all 

age classes, including old growth (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2, 3, 6, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-2, 4, 7, 

FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 4, G-2, 3). Old-growth structure is important to northern 

goshawks because large trees are used for nesting, and large trees, snags, logs and other coarse 

woody debris provide food, shelter, and/or nesting substrate for a variety of prey species. 

Alternative B (modified) removes the language that is present in alternative A about 100- to 

300-acre stands of old growth. Guidelines require that old-growth forest attributes be protected 

from uncharacteristic natural disturbances; that development of old-growth conditions be 

encouraged in areas where it is lacking; and that preference for retention be given to presettlement trees (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1, 2, and 3). Collectively, these plan components would 

allow for the recruitment and sustainability of large trees, old trees, and old-growth structure over 

time, which provides nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawks and reduces 

susceptibility to uncharacteristic fire or uncharacteristic outbreaks of insect and disease. 

Alternative B (modified) also removes the language present in alternative A about 10K blocks and 

a minimum 12-inch d.b.h. size for snags. 

Alternative B (modified) emphasizes characteristic disturbances in species habitats more so than 

alternative A. This supports an underlying assumption of the revised plan that sustainable 

populations of native species would be maintained or enhanced where the ecosystems in which 

they occur or evolved are functioning properly. Desired conditions in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire support this: “Frequent, low-severity fires (Fire Regime I) are 

characteristic in the vast majority of (these) ERUs, including throughout northern goshawk home 

ranges.” See FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-3, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-5. This would contribute to 

the viability of northern goshawks and their prey. This is also supported in fire management with 

a desired condition that wildland fires would not result in loss of ecosystem function (FW-FireDC-3). In addition, the emphasis on ecosystem function is better articulated in alternative B 

(modified) than alternative A. See FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, FW-Soil-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-DC-2, 3, FWRip-All-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, and FW-WFP-DC-1. 

Alternative B (modified) also recognizes that dwarf mistletoe in mixed conifer is naturally 

occurring and contributes to the species and structural diversity of these ERUs. This is intended to 

improve foraging and nesting habitat for wildlife species such as small mammals (tree squirrels) 

and raptors such as northern goshawks. See FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-4. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

674

Implementation of plan objectives and removal of restrictions on use of wildfires with resource 

objectives in wilderness and wildland-urban interface would lead to more open stand conditions 

in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire or uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects and disease on the landscape, reducing the risks of 

habitat loss for species such as northern goshawks. Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) 

does not restrict the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives within the wildland-urban 

interface. Fire and vegetation management in the wildland-urban interface would favor lowintensity surface fires; higher frequency of disturbance than the natural disturbance regime from 

prescribed burning; wildfires managed for resource objectives, and/or vegetative treatments; more 

area of grass/forb/shrub vegetation or early seral vegetation; and more open conditions. Wildlandurban interface areas would still be within the range of desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 6, 

7, and G-1). Although intended to reduce the risk of wildfire to surrounding communities and 

values-at-risk, conditions and activities in the wildland-urban interface could have the positive 

effect of maintaining habitat for northern goshawks by stimulating seed release, germination, or 

causing a temporary increase in nutrient availability in the understory, which could benefit 

goshawk prey species (Satterthwaite et al. 2002). On the other hand, areas with increased 

disturbance from management activities could degrade habitat through accelerated soil erosion, 

soil compaction, depletion of the seedbank in the soil, and establishment of non-native species 

which could collectively degrade portions of prey habitat (Cione et al. 2002). Plants, and prey 

habitat, could respond negatively or positively to more frequent fire, depending on timing 

(actively growing, or when carbohydrate reserves are relatively low), frequency, severity, 

duration, and extent of burning, and how these factors interface with other existing conditions like 

drought (DeBano et al. 1998). Furthermore, more frequent low-severity ground fires are not the 

natural fire regime for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, so the composition and structure of 

this ERU in wildland-urban interface could shift. The effect of these altered conditions in the 

wildland-urban interface on northern goshawk habitat is dependent on the site-specific and 

species-specific interaction of the above-mentioned possible effects and conditions.

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has the following guideline: “Fire suppression 

techniques that minimize habitat and disturbance impacts should be used where there are 

federally listed and Southwestern Region sensitive species, consistent with public and firefighter 

safety” (FW-WFP-G-9). This is intended to mitigate or eliminate potential impacts to habitat or 

species that could occur with suppression tactics. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) lacks plan language about harvesting 

conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only within those Mexican spotted owl protected activity 

centers treated to abate fire risk. This could reduce the area at higher risk of uncharacteristic fire, 

insects and disease, and density-related tree mortality in the locations where goshawk habitat 

overlaps with Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers.

Alternative B (modified) does not utilize the concept of vegetation structural stages in the same 

way as alternative A, e.g., diameter ranges of trees, open versus closed canopy, single-storied or 

multistory, or specific proportions of VSS classes within nesting areas, post-fledging family areas, 

and areas outside of post-fledging family areas (foraging areas). Instead, alternative B (modified) 

describes the habitats used by goshawks in terms of trees of varying age classes (FW-TerrERUPP-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1), areas of different openness, and single story or 

multistory conditions, plus there is specific guidance for nesting areas, post-fledging family areas, 

and foraging areas. For example, at the landscape level, the revised plan promotes a mosaic of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

675

tree groups that comprise an uneven-aged forest with all age classes present, including old growth 

(FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-9). It also promotes trees in structural stages that range from young to 

old...generally uneven-aged and open...with an arrangement of individual trees and small clumps 

and groups of trees interspersed with variably sized openings of understory species similar to 

historic patterns. Openings would range from 10 percent to 70 percent, depending on site 

productivity (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-4, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1, 6, 7). Plan components 

for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire promote a habitat structure, including structural and seral 

stages, which is variable and reflective of natural disturbances and historic patterns (FWTerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 2, 10). The revised plan allows for variability in patch size, among 

groups, within groups, interlocking crowns, and tree density within groups (FW-TerrERU-PPDC-6, 13, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-6, 10, 11, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-4,). In addition, 

the revised plan emphasizes natural disturbances, tree species composition, and understory 

composition and structure more than alternative A (FW-TerrERU-P-PDC-2, 3, 7, 10, 11, FWTerrERU-MC-All-DC-2, 9, 4, 5,8, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9) and further 

describes these ERUs at landscape, mid-scale, and fine scale (less than 10 acres). Implementation 

of these desired conditions would result in habitat conditions that are more resilient to 

disturbances than those described in alternative A, yet of a habitat complexity and variability that 

would support a variety of plant and animal species distributed in natural patterns of abundance. 

Habitat conditions would support nesting and post-fledging habitat for goshawks and food and 

cover for a variety of prey species. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not specifically mention dispersal postfledging family area and nest habitat distributed at certain intervals across the landscape. Instead, 

plan components in alternative B (modified) promote conditions throughout goshawk habitat that 

would be suitable for immigrating individuals or dispersing young to establish territories. These 

plan components include trees in mid-aged and older forests with interlocking crowns (grouped 

and clumped trees) (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-9), variable tree density (varies by ERU), and 

variable group size and number depending upon age, site productivity, time since disturbance, and 

seral stages of groups and patches (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8, 13; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-6, 

7, 10, and 11, FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-5 and 6). Conditions may exceed these densities in 

areas such as steep slopes and canyons, which can be high quality habitat for goshawks or their 

prey. Plan components in the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants also support habitat for 

immigrating and dispersing individuals by promoting habitat at the appropriate spatial, temporal, 

compositional and structural levels for a wide variety of species; promoting habitat conditions 

that provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary for species diversity and metapopulations, 

and promoting terrestrial ERUS that provide the necessary habitat components for carrying out 

growth, reproduction, survival, dispersal and other key life cycle needs of associated native 

species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3). 

Plan language in alternative B (modified) does not require goshawk surveys prior to 

habitat-modifying activities. However, plan language requires that management activities comply 

with species conservation agreements, assessments, strategies, or national guidelines; timing 

restrictions be applied to projects and activities that potentially negatively affect Southwestern 

Region sensitive species (like goshawks); fire suppression techniques that minimize habitat and 

disturbance impacts be used where there are Southwestern Region sensitive species, consistent 

with safety; activities be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle 

needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species; new road and trails locations be designed to 

meet species life history requirements, and nest areas and post-fledging family areas be 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

676

designated in goshawk territories (FW-WFP-G-2, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14). This plan guidance cannot 

be applied without knowing the location of goshawk territories, which are determined and 

validated based on surveys. Surveys will benefit management and the species by identifying 

where this guidance needs to be applied and where it does not need to be applied. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends three wildernesses. Abineau and Strawberry contain 

suitable habitat for this species: Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire (347 acres) and Ponderosa Pine 

(97 acres). About 310 acres of a post-fledging family area overlaps Abineau. Recommended 

wilderness would be managed to maintain or enhance primitive and undeveloped characteristics; 

to preserve native species and unique features; to reduce evidence of modern human control and 

manipulations; and motor vehicle uses should only occur for limited administrative and permitted 

activities to be consistent with wilderness character (FW- RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). 

This could enhance survival or reproduction through reduced disturbance. Recommended 

wilderness would not prohibit prescribed or managed wildfires, but could make them more 

challenging to implement because vehicle use needed to manage fire should be consistent with 

wilderness character, and depending on site-specific conditions, this may not always be possible. 

Active vegetative management and vehicle use would be limited or prohibited (vehicle use only) 

if recommended wildernesses become designated. Designation could restrict the use of vegetative 

treatments or fire to reach the desired conditions for the ERU and the risk of uncharacteristic fire 

or insect and disease outbreaks could increase. This could modify the quality or amount of 

habitat. The magnitude and extent of the effects on species and habitat depends on site-specific 

circumstances, such as what needs to be restored in these ERUs in recommended wilderness, 

what tools and access might be needed for restoration, and availability of tools and access. The 

number of acres of northern goshawk habitat in designated wilderness (40,058 acres) plus those 

in recommended wilderness (444 acres) totals about 40,502 acres or about 4.6 percent of the 

estimated goshawk habitat on the forest. This is a fairly small impact to the species and its 

habitat. 

A guideline in alternative B (modified) addresses species-specific threats and rarity better than 

alternative A. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5); provides the 

resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations (FWWFP-DC-3); and requires that projects and activities be designed and implemented to maintain 

refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive species ... where they are 

likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified) except for the following.

It has the same effects as alternative A for the 100- to 300-acre stands of designated old growth. It 

has the same effects as alternative B (modified) for areas outside these 100- to 300-acre stands, 

which are managed to have old-growth components distributed throughout the landscape.

Alternative C would have the least disturbance to wildlife habitat of any alternative because of 

the recommended wilderness areas, areas classified as not-suitable for recreational shooting, and 

management areas that emphasize reduced disturbance to wildlife habitat. With regard to 

recommended wilderness areas, alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), 

except there are 5,092 acres of goshawk habitat in recommended wilderness, compared to 

444 acres in alternative B (modified). Of this, 731 acres are in post-fledging areas. The number of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

677

acres of northern goshawk habitat in designated wilderness (40,058 acres) plus those in 

recommended wilderness (5,092 acres) totals about 45,150 acres or about 5 percent of the 

estimated goshawk habitat on the forest. This is a relatively small impact to the species and its 

habitat. 

Alternative C is the only alternative that has areas designated as not suitable for recreational 

shooting. The designation of management areas as not suitable for recreational shooting would 

result in reduced disturbance on nearly 500,000 acres of forest land, most of which is goshawk 

habitat. These acres do not include areas that might already be excluded from recreational 

shooting by law. Areas designated as not suitable do not automatically become no recreational 

shooting areas. Subsequent environmental analysis (including public review and comment) and 

decisions need to be done to make this official. These areas include designated botanical and 

geological areas, designated and recommended research natural areas in goshawk habitat as well 

as the following management areas: Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, 

Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Long Valley, Pinegrove, Second chance, Walnut, and Flagstaff 

Neighborwoods. 

Alternative C is the only alternative with management areas designed to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife habitat. Design features to accomplish this would include low-disturbance non-motorized 

recreational activities; no net increase in the area of motorized dispersed camping corridors; 

limitations on the roads that provide public motorized access; and a ban on large group recreation 

events and large commercial tours, except in support of research. These management areas total 

about 357,707 acres and would emphasize native species including northern goshawks. They 

include Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone 

Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance Management Areas. They would reduce human 

disturbance in those areas where the area is not already protected by or in addition to existing 

designations such as wild and scenic rivers or inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of northern goshawks, although individuals may be impacted by management 

activities or permitted uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward 

Federal listing for northern goshawks, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A because of 

updated plan guidance for the ERUs, plan objectives that would reduce the coarse filter threat of 

uncharacteristic fire and facilitate the growth of large trees better than alternative A. These three 

alternatives remove forest plan barriers to utilizing wildfire for resource benefit in designated 

wilderness and wildland-urban interface which could improve habitat for northern goshawks and 

their prey when implemented. Recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified) would 

slightly increase areas of low disturbance for this species. Alternative C would reduce disturbance 

to this species the most due to management areas that are not suitable for recreational shooting, 

management areas managed for reduced disturbance to wildlife, and more acres of northern 

goshawk habitat in recommended wilderness. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

678

Oak Creek triteleia

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The known distribution of Oak Creek triteleia, classified as an Other planning species, includes 

locations on the forest near Foxboro Lake on Schnebly Hill Road, in West Fork of Oak Creek, as 

well as near Rocky Park and Munds Park. Oak Creek triteleia is endemic to northern and central 

Arizona. 

Habitat

Oak Creek triteleia occurs in Ponderosa Pine ERU and wetlands and springs. 

Risk Factors

Rarity is an inherent threat to this species due to its restricted distribution, which is limited to 

Arizona. Disturbance to plants is also a risk from management activities, such as vegetation 

treatments, fire, and road work. The Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above has more 

detail about At-risk Species and Disturbance to Plants.

Environmental Consequences

Table 107 summarizes the viability analysis for Oak Creek triteleia. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

679

Table 107. Analysis summary for Oak Creek triteleia 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Oak Creek 

triteleia 

(Other) F 

Rank = F2*

Endemic

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: MH 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

Wetlands Good**, toward M-H Good**, toward M-H 

Springs Fair***, slowly 

toward

H Fair***, slowly 

toward

H 

Management Effect PP and Wetlands = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat or 

habitat elements is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences.

Springs = 4: Decline in habitat 

quality as a result of management 

or lack of management that result 

from plan components. Plan 

components may not exist or may 

be few.

All ERUs = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area

*F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat - occupies a small portion of its habitat

**For analysis, wetland condition and trend are based on total acres of wetlands, which has the effect of giving greater 

weight to larger wetlands. The condition and trend is fair and slowly toward desired conditions when of individual wetlands 

is considered, instead of total wetland acres.

***For analysis, springs were considered in fair condition. However, some springs could be in poor or good condition 

depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Understory vegetation in Ponderosa Pine ERU is expected to respond favorably to treatment. The 

shift to more open canopy would improve the abundance and vigor of understory vegetation such 

as Oak Creek triteleia. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

680

Plan components in all alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or 

restore riparian ecosystems, including wetlands and springs, direction to use best management 

practices, and would employ either filter strips (alternative A) or aquatic management zones 

(remaining alternatives) to protect water quality and to avoid detrimental changes in water 

temperature, chemical composition, sediment deposits, or blockages. These plan components 

would maintain or improve water conditions and associated habitats. See 1987 Plan, pages 23, 71, 

72, 72-1, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, and FW-WFP-O-4, FW-Rip-All-G-3, 

and FW-Water-G-4. In addition, all alternatives would not allow permanent salt within 1⁄4 mile of 

the edge of any riparian area except alternatives B (modified), C, and D would broaden this 

guideline to apply to salts, minerals, and other supplements with the intention to protect sensitive 

resources from excessive trampling, compaction, salinization, and other impacts (1987 Plan, page 

175, FW-Graz-G-5). This would broaden the benefits to this species. Alternative A could allow 

temporary salting, if it is approved, and would help achieve a specific management objective for 

enhancement of riparian areas. This could benefit the habitat, but could result in trampling of the 

vegetation and soil compaction in Oak Creek triteleia locations. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, could compete with this species for 

water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of invasive 

plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best management practices, 

among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce the threat of invasive 

plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control measures in project 

planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners (1987 Plan, pages 23, 

69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116, FW-Invas-DC-1 through 3, FW Invas G 1-3, FWInvas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FWRec-Dev-G-2, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). Additional information and analysis is discussed under 

the Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

One known occurrence of Oak Creek triteleia is in the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. 

Plan language for designated wilderness would contribute to the viability of Oak Creek triteleia in 

all alternatives. For example, ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a 

natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities 

and permitted uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for 

wilderness and other resources, and use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values 

from being compromised (1987 Plan, pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 107 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

681

Table 107 shows that under alternative A, wetlands would remain in good condition and trend 

toward desired condition based on total acres of wetlands. 

Springs would remain in fair condition and slowly trend toward desired conditions. Accessible, 

unprotected springs would remain in poor condition, while springs that are inaccessible, 

protected, or undeveloped would remain in good condition. 

As shown in table 107, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for Oak 

Creek triteleia is moderate-high to high. These likelihoods were derived by using the process in 

table 9 in volume IIa and combining the species’ F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each habitat: PP (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term 

for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), wetlands (moderate, by 

acres), and springs (high for fair quality).

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the PP ERU and 

wetlands, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability 

of this species than the other alternatives. 

Ponderosa pine is mostly managed for Mexican spotted owls or northern goshawks under 

forestwide direction. Areas managed for Mexican spotted owl PACs and nest/roost characteristics 

tend to have higher canopy closure than areas outside of these areas. Understory in these areas 

may be less abundant or vigorous due to the canopy closure. There are 85,975 PAC acres on the 

forest (nearly 11 percent of Ponderosa Pine). Forest plan direction allow harvest of conifers less 

than 9 inches in diameter only to abate fire risk in most PACs, which have little effect on canopy 

cover. Revised Recovery Plan direction for Mexican spotted owl has since revised this. Oak 

Creek triteleia would be expected to thrive only in more open and partially shaded habitats rather 

than high canopy closure areas, so plan direction that favors more shaded areas would not be 

beneficial for this species. Areas outside of those managed for nest/roost characteristics and areas 

outside of PACs (e.g., restricted areas) could have better habitat for Oak Creek triteleia in areas 

where natural canopy gap processes occur and natural variation includes small openings. See 

1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5. 

Ponderosa pine areas outside of Mexican spotted owl and protected and restricted areas are 

managed for northern goshawks. Plan direction for northern goshawks would tend to be more 

favorable for Oak Creek triteleia because Ponderosa Pine would be managed for a mosaic of 

vegetation densities (overstory and understory); 40 percent of the areas in young forest, 

seedling/sapling or grass/forb/shrub structure would not have canopy cover guidelines; and there 

would be more openings. See 1987 Plan, pages 65-7, 65-9, and 65-10. 

Additional management direction for ponderosa pine is in Management Area 3 (Ponderosa Pine 

and Mixed Conifer less than 40 percent slope) and this direction has both positive and negative 

aspects. Direction to broadcast seed following burns using a high-production multi-growing 

season species to attain a balanced composition of cool and warm season forage species could 

have a negative effect on this triteleia due to competition with non-native species that would be a 

part of this seed mix. However, language to maintain open meadows, eliminate invading 

overstory vegetation, and stabilize gullies could be beneficial. See 1987 Plan, page 120. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

682

Although ponderosa pine is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire and higher density 

stands that result from lack of fire. See 1987 Plan, pages 93, 94, 137. This would provide habitat 

for species such as Oak Creek triteleia. 

Plan language for wetlands and springs is primarily in Management Area 12, Riparian and Open 

Water. Riparian areas include intermittent and perennial streams, wet meadows, marshes, rivers, 

ponds, lakes, and seeps and springs. Alternative A would maintain or improve wetlands or springs 

because it has a focus on riparian recovery in general, and on preventing damage to riparian 

vegetation, and restoring degraded riparian areas to good condition as soon as possible (1987 

Plan, pages 65-8, 172, 174). Alternative A has guidance to construct 10 miles of fences per decade 

for the first two decades where necessary to protect key wet meadows, wetlands, and riparian 

regeneration from grazing (1987 Plan, page 175). Other protective language includes the 

following: Only beneficial new special uses are allowed in riparian areas and exceptions such as 

utility line or roads crossing stream courses are designed to minimize the extent and magnitude of 

impact to riparian (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive fire suppression may be used to prevent 

resource damage utilizing methods that minimize long-term adverse impacts to riparian habitats 

(1987 Plan, page 177). In addition, acquisition of riparian areas through land exchange is a high 

priority (1987 Plan, pages 177 and 185). The plan would manage commercial uses, and recreation 

in some areas, to protect riparian values (1987 Plan, pages 206-10, 22, 26, and 39). Plan language 

for the Flagstaff/ Lake Mary Ecosystem Area guides managers to consider road closure or 

obliteration when there are threatened and damaged riparian areas or roads within wetlands that 

reduce hydrologic function (1987 Plan, 206-70, 206-71).

Other beneficial plan language would protect wetlands by following Executive Order 11990 to 

locate roads, skid trails, and decks out of wetlands, would maintain or improve wetland habitat 

for this species by providing waters for wildlife and livestock away from riparian and meadow 

communities, and would amend allotment management plans to contribute toward achieving 

satisfactory riparian condition (1987 Plan, pages 73, 175). 

However, plan language in alternative A lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, 

and function of the different types of riparian areas, to natural disturbances, and to current 

science. Consequently, this alternative has less potential for improvement to riparian condition 

compared to the other alternatives. 

The management effect rating is classified as a 4 for springs, which means there is a decline in 

habitat quality as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Plan components may not exist or may be few. Managers do not have clear direction 

to maintain or restore springs toward desired condition of properly functioning, resilient springs 

and spring riparian areas when restoring or protecting springs (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Although alternative A lacks objectives for spring restoration, it does not prohibit spring 

restoration at the project level. Plan language in the FLEA area is beneficial for springs because 

roads, trails, camping and grazing would be managed to improve watershed condition particularly 

within springs in the FLEA area and additional outfitter/guide activities or group activities would 

not be placed in any spring site except in support of approved research and/or to improve safety 

or provide site rehabilitation however this language does not apply forestwide (1987 Plan, page 

206-100, 206-110, 206-116).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

683

Alternative B (modified)

Table 107 shows that Ponderosa Pine ERU and wetlands would have the same condition and 

trend as alternative A. 

Springs would remain in fair condition and slowly trend toward desired conditions, like 

alternative A. 

As shown in table 107, the likelihood that Oak Creek triteleia would be limited by the quality of 

its habitat on the forest is moderate-high to high, the same as alternative A. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining these species’ F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: PP (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low 

treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), wetlands (moderate, by acres), 

and springs (high for fair quality) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered 

to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the coarse 

filter habitats associated with Oak Creek triteleia. This means that plan components in alternative 

B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For PP, this rating is because alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological conditions and 

composition, structure, and function of this ERU using current science, in contrast to alternative A 

(Reynolds et al. 2013). Alternative B (modified) promotes an open uneven-aged structure similar 

to historic conditions, yet also has provisions for denser areas such as on steep slopes and in 

canyons (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8, 13). The treatment objectives and desired conditions for the PP 

ERU address the need for restoring the fire regime and canopy conditions toward desired 

conditions. Implementation of these objectives and removal of restrictions on use of wildfires 

with resource objectives would lead to more open stand conditions and reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire on the landscape, reducing the risks of habitat loss for species such as Oak 

Creek triteleia. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) does not repeat direction from the Recovery Plan 

for Mexican Spotted Owls, but instead directs managers to apply habitat management objectives 

and species protection measures from approved recovery plans (FW-WFP-G-1), reducing the 

need for forest plan amendments when forest plan direction conflicts with Recovery Plan 

direction. 

For wetlands, the management effect rating of 2 reflects updated desired conditions and 

guidelines that support wetland composition, structure, and function, connectivity between 

uplands and aquatic and riparian areas, and the maintenance of habitat for species (FW-RipWtlnds-DC-1, 2, FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 3, 5, FW-Rip-All-G-2, 3, FW-WFP-DC-6). In addition, 

riparian functional condition would improve faster than alternative A. The desired conditions 

manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds (FW-RipRipType-DC-1, 2, FW-Water-G-2, FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific aquatic 

management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G-3, FWRip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and Plant 

section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by promoting 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

684

properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological components to 

meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1, 3). 

For springs, a management effect rating of 2 is because alternative B (modified) has desired 

conditions and guidelines to guide spring management on the forest (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1 to 4 and 

FW-Rip-Spr-G-1 to 4), whereas these are largely absent in alternative A. 

Rarity is a risk for Oak Creek triteleia. Alternative B (modified) has components that address 

rarity better than alternative A. Forestwide guidance in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides desired 

conditions for properly functioning ecosystems and ecologically responsible activities that 

support native plants and animals (FW-WFP-DC-1) where ERUs provide the habitat components 

for sensitive and/or endemic species to carry out their life cycle (FW-WFP-DC-3, FW-WFP-G10). These components are complementary to the components for all ecosystems and all 

terrestrial ecosystems and provide additional assurance for the viability of these species.

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the At-risk topic and the Disturbance 

(plants) topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

Alternative C

The effects to Oak Creek triteleia under alternative C would be the same as alternative B 

(modified). 

Alternative D

The effects to Oak Creek triteleia under alternative D would be the same as alternative B 

(modified).

Findings

Considering the cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of Oak Creek triteleia, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this 

species than alternative A. Plan components for Ponderosa Pine ERU, wetlands, and springs 

provide better protection for these habitats and updated plan language for at-risk and rare species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

685

Pronghorn 

Pronghorn are categorized as an Other planning species. 

Affected Environment

Pronghorn are a species of high socioeconomic interest and are a game species. There are a 

number of factors contributing to decline in pronghorn herds across Arizona. Suboptimal habitat 

quality is a significant factor. Continued urban sprawl and associated highway construction has 

fragmented and damaged quality pronghorn habitat (the latter continues to cause direct mortality 

via collision with vehicles). Grasslands historically dependent upon regular fire return intervals 

have been reduced in size by invasion of juniper and shrub species resulting from decades of fire 

suppression. Past livestock grazing and historic fencing practices have reduced habitat quality and 

created barriers that pronghorn cannot maneuver. Finally, persistent drought and predation has 

impacted pronghorn populations to varying degrees statewide. The combination of these factors 

has led to a reduction in habitat availability and quality and periodic declines in fawn recruitment. 

Distribution

Pronghorns occur in western and central North America. They are distributed throughout Arizona 

in suitable habitat. They occur on all three ranger districts on the forest. 

Habitat

Pronghorn are primarily associated with Great Basin Grassland, Montane Grasslands, and Semidesert Grassland ERUs. They prefer open habitat and can also be occasionally observed in open 

ponderosa pine. See Coarse Filter: Habitat for more information about the habitats. 

Risk Factors

Disturbance during the fawning season may negatively impact reproduction and fawn survival.

Barriers to movement are also a threat, such as improperly designed or located fences.

Environmental Consequences

Table 108 summarizes the viability analysis for pronghorn. This table was developed using the 

analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information on 

the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species is limited by its 

habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

686

Table 108. Analysis summary for pronghorn

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Pronghorn

(Other) 

SDG Poor, away M-H Poor, slightly 

toward

M-H 

F Rank =F3* GBG Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away at long 

term 

Short term: L 

Long term: M

Low and high 

objectives: Good, 

static

L 

MSG Good, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away at long 

term 

Short term: L

Long term: M

Good, toward L 

Management Effect GBG, SDG, and MSG = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for some 

habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat 

quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in 

the plan area.

* F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Habitat connectivity is a risk factor to this species that is addressed by all alternatives in several 

ways. All alternatives would provide for accessible waters, fences that provide easier passage, 

unroaded landscapes in Deadman Wash, open landscapes, and food and cover in grasslands (1987 

Plan, pages 69, 168, 206-50 through 53, 206-87; FW-WFP-G-5, 6; FW-ConstWat-DC-2, MAPntdDsrt-DC-2). Increased and improved habitat connectivity would positively impact the 

movement of this species across the landscape will enhance the survival and reproduction of this 

species and contribute to its. Addition information on how all of these alternatives address 

connectivity is discussed in greater detail in the Wildlife and Plants Issues and Topics section.

Alternative A

Table 108 shows that Semi-desert Grasslands would remain in poor condition and trend away 

from desired conditions due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and increased 

fragmentation from urbanization. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

687

Great Basin Grasslands ERU would remain in good condition, but would trend away from desired 

conditions in the short term, as trees and shrubs encroach from the periphery due to lack of fire in 

adjacent ERUs. This would continue to increase and understory would decrease in abundance and 

vigor. In the long term, the Great Basin Grassland ERU would be in fair condition and continue 

trending away from desired conditions. 

The Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU would remain in good condition in the short term, but 

move to fair condition in the long term, and continue trending away from desired conditions due 

to an increase in tree and shrub establishment, especially along the periphery due to a continued 

lack of fire’s natural role in the ecosystem. 

As shown in table 108, the likelihood that pronghorn would be limited by habitat quality in Semidesert Grassland is low to moderate-high. These likelihoods were derived by combining this 

species’ F Ranks of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Semidesert Grassland (high), Great Basin Grassland (low in short term, moderate in long term), and 

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low in short term, moderate in long term) (table 9 in volume IIa). 

Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the 

habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the Semi-desert 

Grassland, Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands habitats in this group, which 

means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less to the viability of this species 

than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A does not distinguish between 

the different grassland types which differ from each other in terms of precipitation patterns, 

composition, soil types, elevation, and structure. In the older sections of the current plan, 

guidance for composition is focused on a balanced composition of cool and warm season grasses. 

More recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem Area, 

have a more ecological approach to composition by promoting diverse healthy populations of 

native plants and animals with a natural variety of plant species, age classes, and structures but 

this guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. 

Alternative A lacks plan components that would impose seasonal timing restrictions to reduce 

disturbance during the fawning season; however, there is an existing forest order (Order No. 04-

00-146) that prohibits vehicles between April 15 and June 27 on Anderson Mesa during the 

pronghorn fawning season. 

Still, alternative A promotes the acquisition of private land in the Savannah Management Area to 

reduce habitat fragmentation and to improve pronghorn and grassland species habitat (1987 Plan, 

page 206-50) and it has other beneficial plan components as described under All Alternatives. It 

also reminds managers to work with the Arizona Game and Fish Department on hunting 

regulations in Management Unit 6B to protect and enhance the pronghorn population. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 108 shows that like alternative A, Semi-desert Grassland ERU would remain in poor 

condition but unlike alternative A, this ERU would trend slightly toward desired conditions due to 

plan objectives that would restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1). The plan objective 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

688

would remove tree and shrub cover and create more open conditions. Increased fragmentation 

from urbanization would be expected to continue. 

Great Basin Grasslands ERU would be in good condition (like alternative A), and the trend would 

improve to static relative to desired condition due to a plan objective that would restore or 

improve 10,800 to 12,400 acres of Great Basin Grasslands during each 10-year period over the 

life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2). 

The condition and trend of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU would improve to good with a 

trend toward desired conditions due to a plan objective that would restore or improve 7,600 to 

11,400 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands during each 10-year period over the life of the 

plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-3). 

As shown in table 108, the likelihood that these species would be limited by habitat quality is low 

to moderate-high. These likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Ranks of F3 with 

the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Semi-desert Grassland (high), Great 

Basin Grassland (low), and Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to 

moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effects are classified as a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. This rating is due 

to this alternative distinguishing between the grassland habitats on the forest and containing 

explicit and updated direction on the composition, structure, and processes for these ERUs (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-4 and 8), compared to alternative A which has a more forage-based approach. 

Plan components are discussed further below and in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section by ERU. 

Under the updated plan direction, there is an overall emphasis on ecological conditions which 

would support a variety of species; properly functioning ecosystems, and restoration of desired 

disturbance regimes (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2). This direction would lead to decreases in tree and shrub 

establishment and a corresponding increase in the distribution and abundance of herbaceous 

species is anticipated in all of these ERUs primarily due to increased treatment levels. Alternative 

B (modified) provides plan components to promote properly functioning and resilient ecosystems, 

promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and

promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems thereby furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, FWTerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with 

varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1 through 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). These plan 

components provide better direction for the grassland habitats and species that use them,

Alternative B (modified) contributes more to the viability of this species through forestwide

timing restrictions (absent in alternative A), desired conditions for the Anderson Mesa pronghorn 

herd (which periodically has had declines), and forestwide language to design new road and trail 

locations to maintain species habitats, species access, and species life history requirements. See 

FW-WFP-G-8 and 13, and MA-AMesa-DC-3. The forestwide language is absent in alternative A.

About 2,459 acres of pronghorn habitat is included in recommended wilderness in alternative B 

(modified). Recommended wilderness would promote a low disturbance setting for pronghorn by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

689

emphasizing non-motorized and non-mechanized activities on new trails, limited motor vehicle 

use, not expanding existing structures (SA-RWild-G-1, 2, 3, and 5). However, recommended 

wilderness could limit restoration of grassland habitat in these areas if motorized equipment is 

needed for treatments. 

Alternative B (modified) draws attention to collaborative management with a management 

approach for all grassland ERUs reminding managers to work with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service on objectives for wildlife conservation, and habitat 

restoration and improvements particularly regarding grassland species such as pronghorn. 

Mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable in this alternative except on trails 

designated for this use. There is a very small amount of pronghorn habitat in botanical and 

geological areas (a little over 300 acres), therefore, this would be a negligible impact to 

pronghorn and their habitat. 

Alternative B (modified) is less prescriptive than alternative A, and as a result, it should allow 

management to be more responsive to site-specific needs and changing conditions over time. This 

would better allow the forest to practice adaptive management and to more effectively cope with 

a changing climate.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there are 14,374 acres of 

pronghorn habitat in recommended wilderness. This would result in more acres that promote a 

low disturbance setting for pronghorn by emphasizing non-motorized and non-mechanized 

activities on new trails, limited motor vehicle use, not expanding existing structures (SA-RWildG-1, 2, 3, and 5). However, it would also result in more acres restoration of grassland habitat 

could be limited if motorized equipment is needed for treatments. 

Alternative C is the only alternative with management areas designed to reduce human-related 

disturbance. These management areas contain almost 65,000 acres of grasslands and would 

emphasize native species including pronghorn. They include Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, 

Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance 

Management Areas. Plan components designed to reduce human-related disturbance would 

include emphasis on low-disturbance non-motorized recreational activities; no net increase in the 

area of motorized dispersed camping corridors; limitations on the roads that provide public 

motorized access; and a ban on large group recreation events and large commercial tours, except 

in support of research. These components would result in reduced human-related disturbance in 

those areas where the area is not already protected by existing designations, such as inventoried 

roadless areas. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except alternative D would recommend no 

new wilderness area. The effects associated with managing those areas as recommended 

wilderness would not occur. These areas would still be managed by the other forestwide, 

management area, and special area direction in alternative B (modified) with the corresponding 

effects discussed above in the alternative B (modified) section.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

690

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of pronghorn, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific activities or 

uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than 

alternative A, because plan components account for the different types of grasslands on the forest, 

have updated guidance, and account for connectivity on a forestwide basis rather than in sitespecific areas. Plan components in these three alternatives boost protections such as timing 

restrictions and encourage fence designs and road placement that promote unobstructed 

movement of pronghorns. These alternatives also have treatment objectives for all three 

grasslands, which result in improving trends, whereas alternative A lacks specific objectives for 

addressing grassland restoration and habitat fragmentation throughout pronghorn habitat.

Rusby’s milkvetch

Affected Environment 

Rusby’s milkvetch is a Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Distribution

Rusby’s milkvetch is a narrow endemic but plentiful throughout its range, which is limited to the 

San Francisco Volcanic field northwest and west of Flagstaff, Arizona. Rusby’s milkvetch is a 

member of the large and diverse genus Astragalus, which contains many endemic species 

throughout its range. 

Habitat

Habitats for Rusby’s milkvetch include aspen groves, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine/Arizona 

fescue, and ponderosa pine/gambel oak sites in dry or temporarily moist basaltic soils. It occurs in 

the Ponderosa Pine, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire, and Mixed 

Conifer Infrequent Fire ERUs and in aspen. Aspen occurs in all of these ERUs and is addressed 

as a sub-ERU along with maple. 

Risk Factors

The threats to the species are rarity and disturbance to plants and their habitat from management 

activities. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 109 summarizes the viability analysis for Rusby’s milkvetch. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that these 

species are limited by their habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. 

Management effect categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative 

in terms of minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan 

objectives. Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management 

effects rating for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species 

viability. These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

691

Table 109. Analysis summary for Rusby’s milkvetch

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Rusby’s 

milkvetch 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = F3*

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: LM 

High 

objective: LM 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at long 

term 

High objective: 

Fair, toward 

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: LM 

MSG Fair, away at 

short term then 

Fair, away at 

long term

Short term: L 

Long term: M 

Good, toward L 

MCFF Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at 

long term

M Low objective: Fair, 

toward at short 

term then Fair, 

static at long term

High objective: 

Good, toward at 

short term then 

Good, static at long 

term 

Low objective: M 

High objective: L

MCIF Fair, away at

short term then 

Poor, away at 

long term

Short term: M 

Long term: 

M-H 

Fair, static M 

Aspen Poor, away M-H Poor, away M-H 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

protection and management for 

some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Quality of habitat is 

maintained or improved by 

providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection and 

management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the plan 

area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

692

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, could compete with Rusby’s milkvetch 

for water and nutrients or could alter the fire regime. All alternatives address the threat of 

invasive plants by pointing to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA Forest Service 2005). This direction includes best 

management practices, among other guidance, which would help prevent, mitigate, and reduce 

the threat of invasive plants. All alternatives prioritize treatments, call for incorporating control 

measures in project planning and implementation, and emphasize coordination with partners 

(1987 Plan, pages 23, 69, 70, 182, 206-14, 206-76, 206-101, 201-116; FW-Invas-DC-1, 2, 3, FWInvas-G-1, 2, 3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-WFP-DC-10, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-3, FW-GrazMgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-2). More detailed analysis is in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topic 

section called Non-native Species and Disease.

All alternatives provide guidance for the management of aspen, which is an early seral species in 

Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 

ERUs. The intent of the guidance for all alternatives is similar (1987 Plan, pages 117, 118, 124-1, 

129, 131, 141 to 144; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1 to 3, FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). However, 

due to low commercial value and past fire suppression, the total number of acres covered and 

recruitment of new stands are thought to be reduced compared to historical coverage. An 

accelerated aspen decline on the Coconino NF was documented between 2003 and 2007, due to a 

combination of a significant frost event, long-term drought, and bouts of defoliation from western 

tent caterpillar. This has resulted in decline in aspen in all of the forested ERUs in the range of 

Rusby’s milkvetch. The declines in aspen have not necessarily directly led to declines in Rusby’s 

milkvetch. Instead, Rusby’s milkvetch plants are sometimes observed growing directly next to 

dead or dying aspen. 

Rusby’s milkvetch occurs in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Plan language for designated 

wilderness would contribute to the viability of this species in all alternatives. For example, 

ecosystems would be functioning properly and would support a natural assemblage of native 

species indigenous to the wilderness area; management activities and permitted uses should be 

designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for wilderness and other resources, and 

use levels should be managed to prevent wilderness values from being compromised (1987 Plan, 

pages 105, 108-1 to 108-4; SA-Wild-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Rusby’s milkvetch occurs in Fern Mountain Botanical Area, which is managed as a Special Area 

in all alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 82, 193 to 196; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5, SA-RNABotGeoDC-6, SA-RNABotGeo-G-1, SA-RNABotGeo-G-3). This is an additional layer of protection for 

the species. The plan direction for all alternatives is similar but more flexible in alternatives B 

(modified), C and D. Law, policy and manual direction would apply to all alternatives. 

Rusby’s milkvetch grows on the volcanic soil of the San Francisco volcanic field, so it is 

dependent on a specific soil type. Plan language under all alternatives directs implementing sitespecific best management practices for ground-disturbing projects (1987 Plan, page 71, FW-SoilG-1, 2, and 3). Implementation of this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities 

that could cause loss of protective vegetative ground cover, and detrimental soil disturbance 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

693

including compaction or soils with high burn severity and sensitive soils with moderate or severe 

erosion hazard and calcareous soils that have high wind erodibility when exposed. Where such 

disturbances cannot be avoided, project-specific best management practices should be developed. 

Finally, specific project design features would be required on projects occurring on slopes greater 

than 40 percent grade, where soils with moderate or severe erosion hazard ratings occur, or where 

soils are sensitive to degradation when disturbed. 

Alternative A

Table 109 shows that at the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres 

prescribed burn), Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition in the short term, then 

improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all alternatives. The 

improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. 

Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), 

vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) over existing condition because 

more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions 

in both the short and long term. The distribution and diversity of understory vegetation are 

expected to increase where open stands are created, such as in areas treated for restoration. 

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands would remain in good condition with a trend away from desired 

conditions in the short term. In the long term, vegetation quality would be in fair condition and 

trend away from desired conditions. This decline is attributed to an increase in tree and shrub 

establishment, especially along the periphery due to a continued lack of fire’s natural role in the 

ecosystem. There would be a corresponding decline in herbaceous species. 

Table 109 shows that Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire would remain in fair condition and trend 

toward desired conditions in the short term. In the long term, the trend would become static as 

treatment levels would not be able to keep up with growth and regeneration; seedlings and 

saplings would make gains through excess regeneration where openings are created and medium 

and large trees would lose ground in open stands as canopy gaps are filled in. 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would remain in fair condition and continue trending away 

from desired conditions in the short term due contradictory direct related to the management of 

wildfires in wilderness areas. In the long term, the condition would become poor and the trend 

would continue to move away from desired conditions. 

Aspen would remain in poor condition trending away from desired condition in all alternatives. 

As shown in table 109, the likelihood that Rusby’s milkvetch would be limited by habitat quality 

is low-moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining Rusby’s milkvetch F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each habitat: Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low in short term, moderate in long term), PP 

(moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate 

for high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (moderate), Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire (moderate in short term, high in long term), Aspen (high) (table 9 in volume IIa). 

Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the 

habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for Ponderosa Pine, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

694

which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A 

provides outdated direction for ponderosa pine. This outdated direction emphasizes timber 

production for most of the ponderosa pine forest (MA 3) rather than composition, structure, and 

natural processes as in the desired conditions. Fire is mentioned in the context of wildfires with 

acknowledgement of natural regeneration. 

In the Ponderosa Pine ERU, alternative A provides direction that allows for a variety of stand 

conditions across the landscape, while mimicking natural disturbance patterns that result in 

irregular tree groups and canopy gaps. This would provide habitat for species such as Rusby’s

milkvetch.

The Ponderosa Pine ERU is recognized as being a fire-dependent ecosystem, but suppression 

objectives that are designed to protect wildland-urban interface, minimize suppression costs, and 

provide for personnel safety make the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem challenging, so the 

ERU and the plants that live in it have a higher risk of being impacted by fire. 

Table 109 shows that the management effect Montane/Subalpine Grasslands in alternative A is a 

3, which means that the current plan has plan components that maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A does not distinguish 

between the different grassland types, which differ in terms of precipitation patterns, composition, 

soil types, elevation, and structure. In the older sections of the current plan, guidance for 

composition is focused on a balanced composition of cool and warm season grasses. More 

recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem Area, have 

a more ecological approach to composition by promoting diverse healthy populations of native 

plants and animals with a natural variety of plant species, age classes, and structures, but this 

guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. 

The management effect for mixed conifer in alternative A is a 3, which means the current plan has 

plan components that maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Alternative A does not provide clear distinction between the mixed conifer vegetation types on 

the forest. Most mixed conifer is included in MA 3 (Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer less than 

40 percent slopes) and (MA 4- Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer greater than 40 percent slopes). 

Direction for management of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire or Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire ERUs would be included in one or more management areas and would not address the 

unique structure or composition of these areas. 

The management effect for aspen in alternative A is a 3, because the current plan has plan 

components maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. Alternative A provides guidance for the management of aspen (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 

144), recognizing the need for regeneration and protection from excessive herbivory. Aspen that 

were protected by the various tools provided in alternative A were expected to regenerate 

successfully, while those areas not treated would continue to decline and eventually fade from the 

landscape. Aspen sustainability on the forest was influenced by budget, Forest Service capacity, 

volunteer effort, and stand vigor. Some aspen stands have been subject to drought, insect 

defoliators, excessive browsing, and altered fire regimes that have exceeded the capacity of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

695

root reserves to maintain stand vigor. This has resulted in widespread decline of aspen across the 

forest. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 109 shows that Ponderosa Pine ERU would have the same condition and trend as 

alternative A. Montane/Subalpine Grasslands would improve to good condition with a trend 

toward desired condition. 

Like alternative A, under the low treatment objectives (2,900 acres mechanical, 8,000 acres 

prescribed fire) Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition with a 

trend toward desired conditions in the short term, then move to fair condition with a static trend 

relative to desired conditions in the long term. Under the high treatment objectives (15,000 acres 

mechanical, 8,000 acres prescribed fire), Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would improve 

to good condition with a trend toward desired conditions in the short term, then move to good 

condition with a static trend relative to desired conditions in the long term.

The Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU would remain in fair condition, but the trend would 

improve to static. Like alternative A, Aspen would remain in poor condition with a trend away 

from desired conditions.

As shown in table 109, the likelihood that Rusby’s milkvetch would be limited by habitat quality 

is low to moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by combining 

Rusby’s milkvetch F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 

habitat: Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low), Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and lowmoderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (moderate under the low treatment objective, low under the 

high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate), and Aspen (high) 

(table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all habitats. 

In alternative B (modified), increased treatment objectives in the Ponderosa Pine ERU address the 

need for ecological restoration that addresses both the shift in canopy conditions away from 

desired conditions. Implementation of these objectives and removal of restrictions on use of 

wildfires with resource objectives in wildland-urban interface and other areas would also reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire on the landscape. 

Rarity is a risk for these species. Alternative B (modified) has components that address rarity 

better than alternative A. This is due to more forestwide guidance to address rare habitats and 

species. This is discussed in the At-risk section under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics. In 

contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has language that better addresses speciesspecific threats and better provides for habitat for species with restricted ranges and distribution: 

i.e., rarity. Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes habitat conditions that would 

provide microsites and refugia for species with restricted ranges (FW-WFP-DC-5) and would 

provide the resiliency and redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and 

metapopulations (FW-WFP-DC-3). Projects and management activities should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwestern Region sensitive 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

696

species and to protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted 

distributions where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-10). 

Alternative B (modified) addresses disturbance to plants and their habitat better than alternative A 

for these species. Although all alternatives provide mitigations for effects to these species from 

management actions, the mitigations are stronger in alternative B (modified). Disturbance to 

Plants and At-risk species are further addressed in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics 

section above.

Alternative B (modified) distinguishes between different grassland types on the forest and 

provides updated and improved plan direction that would guide future projects. Alternative B 

(modified) provides plan components to promote properly functioning and resilient ecosystems, 

promote characteristic disturbances, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances, and 

promote balance between desirable non-native species and subspecies and properly functioning 

ecosystems, thereby, furthering sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, FWTerrERU-All-DC-2). ERU-specific direction would provide for a variety of native species with 

varying seral stages in natural patterns of abundance and distribution that support natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1 through 5, 7, 8, 9, FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-2). These plan 

components provide better direction for the grassland habitats and species that use them, 

including Rusby’s milkvetch 

Alternative B (modified) describes these forest types and provides guidance for each type. FWTerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1 and 4 and FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC 4 provide for vegetative 

ground cover, recognizing its function in controlling erosion and contributions to nutrient cycling 

while recognizing the various structural stages of vegetation including small forest openings that 

provide habitat for plants, such as Rusby’s milkvetch. 

Alternative B (modified) is similar to alternative A in that it provides guidance for the 

management of aspen (FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC 1 to 3 and FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). The 

intent of the guidance is that aspen regeneration should be promoted and protected from excessive 

herbivory from livestock or wildlife. Alternative B (modified) emphasizes that aspen extent and 

location may shift over time, depending on human and natural disturbances more so than 

alternative A (FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-2). 

Alternative B (modified) does not emphasize or prescribe the tools that could be used, but 

instead, it describes desired conditions. Individual projects would determine what techniques 

would be needed in site-specific locations. Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) permits 

the use of wildfire for resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface, which could allow for 

maintenance and promotion of aspen in those locations. 

Alternative B (modified) has a desired condition that describes characteristics of older aspen as 

including old trees, snags, coarse woody debris, and logs and that the amounts of these 

characteristics and tree density vary depending on microsite, time since disturbance and age of 

the stand (FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-3). This desired condition also specifies that aspen snags 

greater than 12 inches d.b.h. are a well-distributed component. The management effect for 

alternative B (modified) is a 2, because this alternative includes plan components that maintain or 

improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

697

Soil desired conditions would promote proper functioning soils, soil protection and stabilization, 

and nutrient cycling (FW-Soil-DC-1 to 4). Forestwide soil guidelines would avoid excessive 

ground disturbance and limit accelerated erosion (FW-Soil-G-1 to 3). This would help to protect 

the volcanic soils needed for Rusby’s milkvetch. 

There are no occurrences of Rusby’s milkvetch in recommended wilderness.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). There are no occurrences of Rusby’s 

milkvetch in recommended wilderness. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants, and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of the Rusby’s milkvetch, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal

listing for Rusby’s milkvetch, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. All alternatives provide 

plan components that address the threat of disturbance from human activities by protecting 

habitats for sensitive and rare and endemic species. Furthermore, all alternatives, particularly 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D, would also improve ponderosa pine forests for the Rusby’s 

milkvetch. 

Southwestern myotis

Affected Environment 

The southwestern myotis bat is classified as an Other planning species.

Distribution

Southwestern myotis range spans from extreme southeastern California through central and 

eastern Arizona into New Mexico, southward through extreme West Texas into Chihuahua and 

other parts of Mexico. In Arizona, most records of southwestern myotis are from the Mogollon 

Rim from Alpine northwest to near Flagstaff, including Mingus Mountain, Verde Valley, Sierra 

Ancha Mountains, and the Pinal Mountains (AZGFD 2003a). 

Habitat

Southwestern myotis are found in ponderosa pine forests, typically near water. They are most 

common at higher elevations between 6,000 and 9,200 feet; however, they have been found at 

much lower elevations near permanent waterways, including the Verde River (AZGFD 2003a). 

Southwestern myotis roosts in Gambel oak cavities and caves. There are approximately 

303,450 acres of potentially suitable habitat on the forest, not including caves. 

Risk Factors

The main risk factors to southwestern myotis are disease and disturbance to active maternity or 

winter roosts in caves, and there are localized impacts from recreational caving and vegetation 

treatments that remove medium to large oaks with cavities.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

698

Environmental Consequences

Table 110 summarizes the viability analysis for southwestern myotis. This table was developed 

using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes 

information on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species 

is limited by its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect 

categorizes the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Management effect category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating 

for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. 

These topics and the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on 

the alternatives that follow.

Table 110. Analysis summary for southwestern myotis

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and status Habitat Habitat 

condition 

and trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative 

to desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Southwestern myotis 

(Other) 

F Rank =F3*

Medium to 

large 

Gambel 

oak in PP

Low objective: 

Poor, toward 

at short term 

then Fair, 

toward at long 

term 

High 

objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High 

objective: L-M 

Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Caves 

(Assuming 

Moderate)

Fair, static M Fair, static M 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan 

components maintain or 

improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained 

or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some 

occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan 

components maintain or improve 

habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and 

management for most habitat 

and habitat element occurrences 

in the plan area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

699

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section 

above for more information. 

All alternatives would protect caves and areas immediately adjacent from unnatural disturbances 

such as seismic disturbances and drilling. All alternatives would evaluate or utilize a 300-foot 

buffer around caves to protect cave and karst resources and ecology, and visitor impacts would be 

managed to maintain the values of significant caves (1987 Plan, page 51-2, FW-BioPhys-Geo-G2). 

Alternative A includes several guidelines that would restrict controlled source seismic surveys 

requiring explosives or other disruptive techniques from being conducted over or close enough to 

known caves to create unnatural disturbances. Cave microclimates, hydrology, and entrance 

vegetation would be maintained to protect long-term cave ecology. (1987 Plan, page 51-2). 

Significant caves would be monitored to determine visitor impacts and the conditions of key 

resources. (1987 Plan, page 51-1). Drilling is not allowed over known caves or within a suitable 

buffer (1987 Plan, page 51-2). 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D include a guideline to protect previously undiscovered caves 

that are encountered above the zone of saturation for the regional water aquifer during drilling 

operations, by requiring precautions to be taken to protect the cave, including sealing the casing 

above and below the cave to prevent airflow and water leakage to maintain sensitive ecosystem 

conditions (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-3). Another guideline requires blasting and/or controlled-source 

seismic surveys requiring explosives or other disruptive techniques to avoid, where possible, or 

minimize damage to cave features, condition, and function. The purpose is to maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the cave (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-4). These 

alternatives also include a standard that requires that caves that have been designated or 

nominated as significant caves to be managed to perpetuate those features, characteristics, values, 

or opportunities for which they were designated (FW-BioPhys-Geo-S-1) 

Collectively, these plan components would maintain the microclimate, airflow, chemical, 

physical, and biological conditions within the cave necessary for bat roosting, overwintering, 

reproduction and survival under all alternatives. 

Ponderosa Pine occurs in five seasonal closure areas: Nordic Ski Center (160 acres), Pine Grove 

(12,805 acres), Rattlesnake (5,288 acres), Woods (7,603 acres), and Woody Ridge (4,913 acres). 

These areas are closed seasonally to provide cross country skiing opportunities without motorized 

vehicles, undisturbed habitat for the protection of rare wildlife and to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife and big game winter habitat (1987 Plan, pages 59, 167; Off-Road Driving Management 

Plan associated with 1987 Plan, page 206-114; MA-Peaks-DC-6 and S-2;, MA-VerdeV-DC-7 and 

S-1; MA-PineBelt- DC-5, 6, 7, 8 and S-1, 2,3,4;, and MA-LkMary-DC-4 and S-1). These closures 

directly and indirectly create low-disturbance areas for wildlife during the closure time periods 

which can facilitate reproduction and survival.

Alternative A

Table 110 shows that the Ponderosa Pine ERU (including medium to large Gambel oak) at the 

low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres prescribed burn) would remain 

in poor condition in the short term, then improve to fair condition and trend toward desired 

conditions under all alternatives. The improved vegetation structure and composition would 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

700

mechanical, 200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation quality would improve faster (than the 

low objective) over existing condition because more acres would be treated. It would be in fair 

condition and trending toward desired conditions in both the short and long term. The distribution 

and diversity of understory vegetation are expected to increase where open stands are created, 

such as in areas treated for restoration. The shift to more open canopy under all alternatives 

would improve the abundance and vigor of understory vegetation and conditions for Gambel oak. 

Generally, caves would remain in fair condition with a static trend related to desired conditions. 

However, caves that are inaccessible and rarely visited would be in good condition, while caves 

that are accessible and receive a high level of visitation would be in poor condition. 

As shown in table 110, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality is lowmoderate to moderate. These likelihoods were derived by combining this species’ F Rank of F3 

with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Ponderosa Pine (moderate in 

short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment objective; low-moderate for high 

treatment objective) and caves (moderate, assuming fair condition) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low 

to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect rows show the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for the Ponderosa 

Pine ERU and caves, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve 

protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute less 

to the viability of this species than the other alternatives. 

For the Ponderosa Pine ERU, this is primarily because portions of the 1987 Plan manage Gambel 

oak for firewood and wildlife habitat with detailed silvicultural prescriptions. The emphasis on 

firewood would not be beneficial for this species because the human population has increased so 

much since the plan was written, oak is harder to find, and signs of theft are common in certain 

areas of the forest. Beneficial guidelines include snag retention and rotation age of 240 to 

360 years (for large oaks) (1987 Plan, page 131). Gambel oak would be maintained for vegetation 

diversity and/or mast production in Management Areas 6 and 7 (1987 Plan, pages 147 and 152). 

Old growth would be managed in 100- to 300-acre stands with specific tree density, snag, and 

downed log specifications (1987 Plan, pages 70-2, 151, 152, and 157). This would not be 

beneficial for this species in the short term because 100- to 300-acre stands would not be 

consistent with the frequent fire low-severity fire regime typical of Ponderosa Pine and this size 

of stand does not reflect current science (See Vegetation and Fire Report). Consequently, 

southwestern myotis habitat within these stands would be increasingly vulnerable to habitat loss 

resulting from uncharacteristic fire. 

Plan objectives in Ponderosa Pine would be beneficial for this species because treated areas 

would move toward more open conditions which would increase the vigor of Gambel oak, and 

consequently, improve the quality of roost sites. 

Plan language that limits the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives in wilderness and 

in wildland-urban interface would not be beneficial for southwestern myotis because they occur 

in Ponderosa Pine, which is a fire-adapted ecosystem. This language eliminates one management 

tool that could maintain openness that favors Gambel oak in southwestern myotis habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

701

As described under Coarse Filter: Habitat, ponderosa pine is also found within geological areas, 

research natural areas, designated wilderness, and environmental study areas. Direction for 

geological areas and research natural areas is found in Management Area 17. Standards and 

guidelines would maintain and protect habitat for this species due to emphasis on ecological 

condition, requiring allotment management plans to have provisions to protect ecological 

conditions, prohibiting timber harvest and fuelwood harvest, restricting special use permits that 

would have a negative impact on the uniqueness of special areas, and preventing motor vehicle 

intrusions (1987 Plan, pages 195 and 196). 

In addition to restrictions on motorized and mechanized use, direction for designated wilderness 

is found in Management Area 1. In the Munds Mountain, Red Rock-Secret Mountain, and a 

portion of the Sycamore Wildernesses, plan direction would expand the opportunities for 

wilderness day hiking by creating more trail loops. This could create disturbance for this species 

during critical time periods if the trails are adjacent to roosts. Consolidating multiple trails in 

West Fork (Red Rock-Secret Mountain) into one primary trail could reduce disturbance from high 

recreation use to some roosts. The prohibition of camping outside of designated camp spots and 

of recreation fires in West Fork could reduce the potential for uncharacteristic fire in species 

habitat in this area (1987 Plan, page 108-2). 

Direction for Environmental Study Areas (Management Area 18) generally promotes use of these 

areas for school groups and protection of the resources within them. Use is primarily day-use.

Resource protection such as reducing the potential for uncharacteristic fire, and fencing or signing 

to protect soil, riparian or vegetative resources would generally be beneficial by maintaining or 

protecting habitat (1987 Plan, pages 198 and 199). 

For caves, alternative A includes particularly beneficial plan components for cave-dwelling 

species, such as conserving wildlife habitat provided by caves; preventing contamination of water 

draining into, issue from or are contained within caves, and protecting cave resources (1987 Plan, 

page 22, 51-2). Caves used or recently used by bat populations would be managed to maintain or 

enhance these populations (1987 Plan, page 51-1). This could include implementing timing 

restrictions or installing bat gates to reduce disturbance during key portions of their life cycle 

(maternity, wintering).Alternative A also has standards and guidelines to examine activities near 

or within cave areas for potential impacts to caves and karst features including adding nutrients or 

other chemicals (including pesticides which could impact bats or their prey (1987 Plan, page 51-

2). 

There is no language that explicitly addresses disease. White-nose syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus 

destructans) is a concern, because it is a fungus that has killed millions of bats. It has not yet been 

detected in Arizona, but has been detected in bat species whose ranges include Arizona.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 110 shows that the Ponderosa Pine ERU and caves would have the same condition and 

trend as alternative A.

As shown in table 110, the likelihood that this species would be limited by habitat quality is lowmoderate to moderate, the same as alternative A. These likelihoods were derived by combining 

this species’ F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each habitat: PP

Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective) and caves (moderate, assuming fair 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

702

condition) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural 

range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats in this group, which means that plan 

components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or 

improving protection and management for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area. For the Ponderosa Pine ERU, this rating is due to this alternative containing explicit 

and updated direction on the composition, structure, and processes of this ERU based on current 

science. Plan components include direction on management for large Gambel oak trees and snags. 

There is improved guidance for Gambel oak in this alternative, compared to alternative A. 

Desired conditions in Ponderosa Pine ERU emphasize Gambel oak, a roost tree used by this 

species, as well distributed and provide for sustainability by promoting all sizes and ages of oak 

trees in natural patterns of abundance and density. Specifically beneficial desired conditions 

discuss the size and distribution of large oak snags (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5 and 7). Moderate to 

large live oak trees with dead limbs, hollow boles, and cavities would provide shelter and habitat 

for a variety of wildlife species, including the southwestern myotis. A Ponderosa Pine ERU 

guideline would manage for Gambel oak trees and snags to be sustained over time (FW-TerrERUPP-G-4). 

For caves, this management effect rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated 

direction related to maintaining the integrity and function of these biophysical features and the 

specialized habitat they provide. Some particularly beneficial plan components for cave-dwelling 

species include desired conditions in the section on Geological Features that would provide 

habitat for species that require specialized niches for roosting and overwintering and disease 

within natural levels. Other desired conditions promote protection and maintenance of 

subterranean microclimate and ecology, disease within natural levels, and promotes quantity and 

quality of water within and entering caves within the natural range of variability. See FWBioPhys-Geo-DC-2, 3, 4 and G-8. Beneficial guidelines include maintenance and protection of 

the chemical, physical, and biological conditions of cave resources and protection of endemic 

cave species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-2, 4, and 7). Guidelines also promote management of caves to 

prevent disturbance, spread of disease, and the use of wildlife-friendly gates that meet Bat 

Conservation International recommendations (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G- 5 and 6). 

Guidelines in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant section would protect bats and their prey by ensuring 

that projects include measures to minimize the spread of disease and minimize the negative 

impact of pesticides and other chemicals to species and their habitat, including chemical-free 

buffers around bat roosts, riparian, or aquatic habitat (FW-WFP-G-3 and 4). This is more 

beneficial than the language in alternative A, because it explicitly addresses the fine filter threat 

for this species and would minimize the negative impacts of pesticides to this species and its 

habitat. 

There are 97 acres of ponderosa pine in recommended wilderness. Desired conditions would be 

beneficial for this species and its habitat because of the emphasis on undeveloped characteristics, 

ecological characteristics, native species, and little evidence of human presence or occupation 

(SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, and 5). 

Plan language in alternative B (modified) for geological areas, botanical areas, and research 

natural areas is similar to alternative A in that there would be an emphasis in research natural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

703

areas on ecological condition, natural processes, requiring allotment management plans to have 

provisions to protect ecological conditions, restricting special use permits that would have a 

negative impact on the uniqueness of special areas, and preventing motor vehicle intrusions (SARNABotGeo-DC-2, G-1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In addition, minimal impact fire suppression tactics are 

recommended (SA-RNABotGeo G-3). Overnight camping, recreation campfires would be 

prohibited in established research natural areas and permitted commercial tours would be 

prohibited, except in support of approved research or education in established research natural 

areas (SA-RNABotGeo-S-1 and 2). 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified), except there are 4,462 acres in 

recommended wilderness. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified), except there are no recommended 

wildernesses. 

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of southwestern myotis, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D better provide for the viability of this 

species than alternative A, primarily because they contain updated plan language for Gambel oak, 

which is used for roosting in Ponderosa Pine ERU, and explicit language that addresses disease, 

which is absent in alternative A. Finally, while alternative A has language that addresses rare and 

at-risk species, plan language in the remaining alternatives is updated, has wider applicability, and 

contributes more to the viability of at-risk and rare species than alternative A.

Western red bat

The western red bat is a Southwestern Region sensitive species.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The species occurs from British Columbia into Argentina and Chile. In Arizona, the western red 

bat is thought to be a summer resident (Hoffmeister 1986). They have been reported from 

Montezuma Well (Hoffmeister 1986) and Kachina Village area (Gambel oak) (Chambers 2010 

pers comm.). Outside the forest, they have also been reported from Bright Angel Creek in the 

Grand Canyon, and in Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties in southeastern Arizona (Hoffmeister 

1986). 

Habitat

The western red bat occurs in widely scattered locations statewide, except in deserts, primarily 

along riparian corridors among oaks, sycamores, walnuts, and cottonwoods at elevations between 

2,400 and 7,200 feet. Western red bats typically roost singly in dense clumps of foliage of trees or 

shrubs in riparian or other wooded areas, but forage in adjacent uplands. They have been located 

roosting in Gambel oak within the ponderosa pine type as well. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

704

Risk Factors

Intensive use of pesticides in orchards may threaten roosting bats and significantly reduce the 

amount of insect prey available.

Environmental Consequences

Table 111 summarizes the viability analysis for western red bat. This table was developed using 

the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above. It includes information 

on the status, F Rank, habitat, habitat condition and trend, likelihood that this species is limited by 

its habitat, and the projected management effect, by alternative. Management effect categorizes 

the relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of minimizing species 

viability risk and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect 

category values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating for a species’ 

associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species viability. These topics and 

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.

Table 111. Analysis summary for western red bat

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Western 

red bat 

(Sensitive)

F Rank = 

F3*

Deciduous 

trees in 

CWRF 

Fair, slowly 

toward except 

portions of Dry 

Beaver, Spring 

Creek, Verde 

River (Childs, 

private lands) are 

static

M-H Good, slowly toward M 

Deciduous 

trees in 

MBDRF

Good, majority is 

static to slowly 

toward except: 

Beaver Creek 5th

code HUC is Fair, 

slowly toward; 

Oak Creek 5th

code HUC is Fair 

to Good, static; 

West Clear Creek 

5th code HUC is 

Good, static; and 

portions of Fossil 

Creek are Fair, 

away where there 

are high 

recreation 

impacts

M except MH in Beaver 

Creek, Oak 

Creek, and 

Fossil Creek 

5th code 

HUCs where 

recreation 

impacts are 

high. 

Good, majority is 

slowly toward 

except: Beaver 

Creek 5th code HUC 

is Good, toward 

except Fair in 

recreation impact 

areas; Oak Creek 

5th code HUC is 

Good, toward; West 

Clear Creek 5th

code HUC is Good, 

slowly toward; and 

Fossil Creek 5th

code HUC is Good, 

toward.

M except M-H 

in Beaver 

Creek 5th code 

HUC high 

recreation 

areas
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

705

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species 

and status

Habitat Habitat 

condition and 

trend relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat condition 

and trend relative 

to desired

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

MWRF Good, static to

slowly toward 

except Upper 

Clear Creek 5th

code HUC which 

is Fair, toward.

M, except 

Upper Clear 

Creek 5th

code HUC is 

M-H 

Good, slowly 

toward, except 

Upper Clear Creek 

5th code HUC is 

Good, toward.

M 

PP Low objective: 

Poor, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: 

Fair, toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: LM 

High 

objective: LM 

Low objective: Poor, 

toward at short term 

then Fair, toward at 

long term

High objective: Fair, 

toward

Low objective 

short term: M

Low objective 

long term: L-M 

High objective: 

L-M 

Management Effect All habitats = 3: Plan components 

maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. 

Quality of habitat is maintained or 

improved by providing protection, 

maintenance, and restoration to 

some occurrences. 

All habitats = 2: Plan components 

maintain or improve habitat quality by 

maintaining or improving protection 

and management for most habitat and 

habitat element occurrences in the 

plan area.

*F3 = Uncommon on the forest within its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable 

populations of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-

11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 

206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 

and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above 

for more information. 

Alternative A

Table 111 shows that under alternative A, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in 

fair condition, and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest would remain in good condition. All of these riparian forest types would mostly have a 

static trend, slow trend, or trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow, some portions 

of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, and Spring Creek, would be static due to high recreation or 

private land. In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, static trends are associated with the Oak Creek 5th

code and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. Trends that are slowly toward desired conditions are 

associated with the Beaver Creek and the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River 5th code HUCs, 

except portions of Fossil Creek have a trend away from desired conditions where recreation use is 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

706

high. Trends in Montane Willow would be static to slowly toward desired conditions except the 

Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC is trending toward desired conditions. 

The Ponderosa Pine ERU (including the Gambel oak component) at the low treatment objectives 

(50,000 acres mechanical, 100,000 acres prescribed burn) would remain in poor condition in the 

short term, then improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under all 

alternatives. The improved vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire. Under the high treatment objectives (260,500 acres mechanical, 

200,000 acres prescribed burn), vegetation quality would improve faster (than the low objective) 

over existing condition, because more acres would be treated. It would be in fair condition and 

trending toward desired conditions in both the short and long term. The distribution and diversity 

of understory vegetation are expected to increase where open stands are created, such as in areas 

treated for restoration. The shift to more open canopy under all alternatives would improve the 

abundance and vigor of understory vegetation and conditions for Gambel oak. 

As shown in table 111, the likelihood that the western red bat would be limited by its habitats on 

the forest is low-moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the western red bat’s F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each habitat: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and 

Ponderosa Pine (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate 

ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. There would 

be localized exceptions such as in high recreation use areas in the Beaver Creek and Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code HUCs, where the likelihood that this species would be limited would be 

moderate-high for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest. 

The management effect row in table 111 shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in 

terms of minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 3 for all 

habitats, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute less to the 

viability of this species than the other alternatives. Alternative A does not distinguish riparian 

forest types from other riparian areas, nor does it distinguish between the riparian forest types. It 

lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, and function. In addition, this 

alternative has the least potential for improvement to riparian condition compared to the other 

alternatives. 

For the Ponderosa Pine ERU, this management effect rating is primarily because some portions of 

alternative A provide outdated direction for Mexican spotted owls and for old growth. Portions of 

the current forest plan manage Gambel oak for firewood and wildlife habitat with detailed 

silvicultural prescriptions. The emphasis on oak firewood would not be beneficial for this species 

because the human population has increased so much since the plan was written, the demand for 

oak firewood is high, oak is harder to find, and signs of theft are common in certain areas of the 

forest. Beneficial guidelines include a rotation age of 240 to 360 years (for large oaks) (1987 

plan, page 131). Gambel oak would be maintained for vegetation diversity and/or mast 

production in Management Areas 6 and 7 (1987 Plan, pages 147, 152). Old growth would be 

managed in 100- to 300-acre stands with specific tree density, snag, and downed log 

specifications (1987 Plan, pages 70-2, 151, 152, and 157). This would not be beneficial for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

707

western red bats in the short term because 100- to 300-acre stands would not be consistent with 

the frequent fire low-severity fire regime typical of Ponderosa Pine and this size of stand does not 

reflect current science (see Vegetation and Fire Report). Consequently, western red bat habitat 

within these stands would be increasingly vulnerable to habitat loss resulting from 

uncharacteristic fire. 

• Plan objectives in Ponderosa Pine would be beneficial for this species because treated 

areas would move toward more open conditions which would increase the vigor of 

Gambel oak and consequently improve the quality of roost sites. 

• Plan language that limits the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives in 

wilderness and in wildland-urban interface would not be beneficial for western red bats 

because they occur in Ponderosa Pine, which is a fire-adapted ecosystem. This language 

eliminates one management tool that could maintain openness that favors Gambel oak in 

these portions of western red bat habitat. 

Plan language in alternative A promotes the use of pesticides to prevent or suppress damaging 

pest outbreaks when they are legal, cost-efficient and environmentally acceptable; requires preapplication inspections to ensure that surface or ground water contamination does not occur; and 

promotes the use of mitigation and protection measures when treating noxious or invasive weeds 

with chemicals (1987 plan, pages 69, 70, 73, and 121). These are generally protective of this 

species habitat under conditions that consider western red bat habitat during application. 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 111 shows that under alternative B (modified), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would 

improve to good condition and trend slowly toward desired conditions except portions of the 

Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek and Dry Beaver Creek would improve faster, i.e., have a 

trend toward desired conditions. 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and would slowly 

move toward desired conditions except portions of Fossil Creek and Wet Beaver Creek would 

remain static in areas of high recreation use. It would improve faster than alternative A in the 

Beaver Creek, Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil Creek 5th code HUCs.

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good condition and slowly trend toward 

desired conditions, except Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC would improve so it would no 

longer have a high likelihood of limitation.

The Ponderosa Pine ERU would have the same condition and trend as alternative A, fair with a 

trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 111, the likelihood that western red bat would be limited by its habitat on the 

forest is low-moderate to moderate-high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by combining the western red bat’s F Rank of F3 with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and 

Ponderosa Pine ERU (moderate in short term and low-moderate in long term for low treatment 

objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective) (table 9 in volume IIa). Low to moderate 

ratings are considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat to which the 

species would be adapted. There would be localized exceptions such as in high recreation use 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

708

areas in the Beaver Creek 5th code HUC where the likelihood that this species would be limited 

would be moderate-high for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. 

The management effect row shows the relative expected outcome of plan language in terms of 

minimizing species viability risk. The management effect is classified as a 2 for all the habitats 

associated with western red bat. This means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for 

most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. 

For Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest, this rating is primarily because there are updated desired 

conditions and guidelines that distinguish between the riparian forest types and that support their 

respective composition, structure, and function (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6 FW-Rip-RipTypeG-1 to 4). In addition, riparian functional condition would improve faster than alternative A, 

especially along the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek, which is 

habitat for bald eagles, beavers, common black hawks, and western red bats. The desired 

conditions manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function including in priority watersheds 

(FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 and 2; FW-Water-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). More site-specific 

aquatic management zone guidelines protect riparian function and water quality (FW-Rip-All-G3; Fw-Rip-Strm-G-2) (USDA Forest Service 2016b). Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish and 

Plant section also contribute to the viability of species associated with riparian areas by 

promoting properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological 

components to meet the needs of associated native species (FW-WFP-DC-1 and 3). 

For the Ponderosa Pine ERU, this rating is due to this alternative containing explicit and updated 

direction on the composition, structure, and processes of this ERU based on current science. Plan 

components include direction on management for large Gambel oak trees and snags. Desired 

conditions in Ponderosa Pine ERU emphasize Gambel oak, a roost tree used by this species, as 

well distributed and provides for their sustainability by promoting all sizes and ages of oak trees

in natural patterns of abundance and density. Specifically beneficial desired conditions discuss the 

size and distribution of large oak snags (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5 and 7). Moderate to large live 

oak trees with dead limbs, hollow boles, and cavities will provide shelter and habitat for rare 

plants and a variety of wildlife species, including the western red bat. A Ponderosa Pine ERU 

guideline would manage for Gambel oak trees and snags to be sustained over time (FW-TerrERUPP-G-4). 

A guideline in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant section would protect bats and their prey by ensuring 

that projects include measures to minimize the negative impact of pesticides and other chemicals 

to species and their habitat, including chemical-free buffers around bat roosts, riparian, or aquatic 

habitat (FW-WFP-G-4). This is more beneficial than the language in alternative A, because it 

explicitly addresses the fine filter threat for western red bats and would minimize the negative 

impacts of pesticides to this species and its habitat.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

709

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the analyses under the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat and Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would provide 

for the viability of western red bats, although individuals may be impacted by site-specific 

activities or uses. Consequently, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal 

listing for western red bat, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D better provide for the viability of this species than alternative A, primarily because they 

contain updated plan language that benefits Gambel oak, which is used for roosting in the 

Ponderosa Pine ERU, would improve habitat conditions and trends for the riparian forest habitats, 

would better address the impact of pesticides for this species. In contrast to alternative A, 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D distinguish riparian forest types from other types of riparian 

areas, giving managers updated and more specific plan language to rely on. Finally, while 

alternative A has language that addresses rare and at-risk species, plan language in the remaining 

alternatives is updated, has wider applicability, and contributes more to the viability of at-risk and 

rare species than alternative A (see write-up on At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues 

and Topics section for additional information). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

710

Management Indicator Species

National Forest Management Act regulations direct the identification of management indicator 

species to assess how plan alternatives may affect wildlife populations (1982 Planning Rule 

section 219.19 (a)(1)) and as a monitoring tool upon plan implementation (219.19(a)(6)). Forest 

Service Manual 2620.5-2 direction allows identification of ecological indicators such as plant 

communities that contribute substantially to species viability. Three management indicator 

species and two ecological indicators are identified and discussed in this section. Chapter 5 of the 

proposed plan includes monitoring for management indicator species and ecological indicators. 

The Forest Supervisor chose pronghorn, Mexican spotted owl, and pygmy nuthatch as 

management indicator species (table 112). Aquatic macroinvertebrates and aspen were chosen as 

ecological indicators and are covered in other specialist’s reports (USDA Forest Service 2016d 

species viability and aquatic specialist’s report). The reasons for selection of these species was to 

cover both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, to focus on ERUs and riparian forest types where 

management activities are expected to be emphasized, the availability of, and ease of obtaining 

monitoring data, and species that are responsive to management activities (table 112).

Table 112. Management indicator species indicator habitat and the primary reasons for their 

selection. These apply to all alternatives.

Species Indicator Habitat Primary Reasons for Selection

Pronghorn Great Basin Grassland

Montane/Subalpine Grassland

Semi-desert Grassland

Good indicator for grassland habitat. Also selected 

by the Kaibab and Prescott National Forests. Good 

species to evaluate habitat connectivity.

Mexican 

Spotted Owl

Ponderosa Pine – Gambel Oak 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire

Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire

Very strongly tied to these three ERUs. Treatments 

are expected to occur over the life of the plan, 

particularly in Ponderosa Pine. MSO is a federallylisted species, and population monitoring is a 

component of its recovery plan.

Pygmy 

Nuthatch

Ponderosa Pine – Old Growth

Ponderosa Pine - Snags

Indicator for mature forest and snags. There are 

robust density and occupancy estimates from 

ongoing rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

monitoring to help track population trend.

Coconino National Forest Management Indicator Species

Pronghorn

Affected Environment 

The pronghorn was selected as an indicator for Semi-desert Grassland, Great Basin Grassland, 

and Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERUs on the forest. This species was also a management 

indicator species for the 1987 Plan. Pronghorn prefer areas of grasses and scattered shrubs with 

rolling hills and mesas (Hoffmeister 1986). Descriptions of these ERUs can be found in the 

Vegetation and Fire section in Chapter 3 of volume I of the FEIS.

Existing condition habitat trends: Summing the acres within the three grassland ERUs on the 

forest, the current estimate of indicator habitat for the pronghorn is 206,199 acres (table 113). 

Current conditions for Montane/Subalpine Grassland and Great Basin Grassland ERUs are that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

711

they have low departure from reference conditions, but Semi-desert Grassland is highly departed 

(table 113). All three ERUs are trending away from reference conditions for vegetation and fire 

(table 113). All three ERUs are highly departed from their natural soil conditions, although the 

trend for soil conditions ranges from stable to toward for the three ERUs (table 113). Overall, the 

current trend for grassland indicator habitat for pronghorn is declining. 

Table 113. Amount of pronghorn indicator habitat (ERU acreage), and existing departure1 and trend 

relative to reference conditions for vegetation, fire, and soils for pronghorn indicator habitat ERUs

Indicator Habitat Existing Acres Existing Departure1 (%) and Trend

Vegetation Fire Soils

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland

23,656 Low (32), Away High, Away High (69), Static

Great Basin 

Grassland2 

92,842 Low (10), Away High, Away High (87), Toward

Semi-desert 

Grassland2 

89,701 High (100), Away High, Away High (95), Slowly 

Toward

Total: 206,199

1

Departure was assessed as Low (0-33 percent), Moderate (34-66 percent), or High (>66 percent).

2

These ERUs were modeled to predict changes by alternative; other ERUs were qualitatively assessed.

Existing condition population trend: Since the 1987 Plan was signed, pronghorn population 

indicators have fluctuated since the late 1980s, with fawn:doe ratios showing greater fluctuation 

than number of pronghorn observed per hour (USDA Forest Service 2013). But within the range 

of fluctuations, the population trend appears to be relatively stable, with fawn:doe ratios 

increasing somewhat over approximately the last 10 years (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Summary of Indicator Habitat and Trends for All Alternatives

The following table summarizes the departure and trends for grassland ERUs for existing 

conditions (table 114). The table also summarizes the predicted departure and trends for grassland 

ERUs after 15 years of implementation under each alternative. These grassland ERUs serve as 

indicator habitat for pronghorn. This table will be referred to in the following effects analysis 

discussions for each alternative.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

712

Table 114. Summary of existing grassland vegetation, fire regime, and soils departure1 and trend relative to reference conditions 

Departure (%)1, Trend

Vegetation Fire Soils

Indicator 

Habitat 

(ERU)

Existing Alternative

A 

Alternatives B 

(modified), C, D

Existing Alternative

A 

Alternatives

B (modified), 

C, D

Existing Alternative 

A 

Alternatives

B (modified), 

C, D

Montane/ 

Subalpine 

Grassland

Low (32), 

Away

Moderate, 

Away

Low (10-14), 

Toward

High, 

Away

High, Away High, Away High,

Static

High, Static High, toward

Great Basin 

Grassland2 

Low (10), 

Away

Low (21), 

Away

Low (11-12), 

Static

High, 

Away

High, Away High, Away High, 

Slowly 

Toward

High, 

Slowly 

Toward

High, Toward

Semi-desert 

Grassland2 

High (100), 

Away

High, Static High (94), 

Toward

High, 

Away

High, Away High, Away High, 

Slowly 

Toward

High, 

Slowly 

Toward

High, Toward

1

Departure was assessed as Low (0-33 percent), Moderate (34-66 percent), or High (>66 percent).

2

These ERUs were modeled to predict changes by alternative; other ERUs were qualitatively assessed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

713

Except for vegetation, which changes from Low to Moderate for Montane/Subalpine Grasslands under 

alternative A, none of the departure values change under the alternatives for any of the ERUs. 

Additionally, fire trends do not differ among any of the alternatives. Vegetation and soils trends stay the 

same or improve some under alternative A, but the most improve in trend occurs under alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D. Overall, alternatives B (modified), C, and D would result in slightly improved 

condition of grassland indicator habitats as compared to alternative A. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations 

of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 

206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 

206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Alternative A

Pronghorn are identified as a management indicator species for early and late seral grassland habitat. The 

1987 Plan gives management emphasis for pronghorn in these habitats within Management Area MA 9 – 

Mountain Grassland, MA 10 – Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper Above the Rim, and MA 11 – Verde 

Valley. Almost all of Anderson Mesa, which is important Great Basin Grassland pronghorn habitat, is 

within MA 10. The management emphasis in these MAs is on livestock grazing, visual quality, and 

wildlife habitat, specifically, to emphasize management of pronghorn. The corresponding ERUs are Great 

Basin Grasslands, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, and Semi-desert Grasslands.

Standards and guidelines that implement the direction to manage for pronghorn in these three MAs call 

for maintaining and improving mountain meadows and grasslands by removing invading overstory, 

controlling invasive plant species, prescribed burning, and other methods. Restrictions on off-road driving 

if resource damage is occurring, and a guideline to avoid construction of new roads in MA 9 are 

beneficial to maintaining and improving grassland habitat. Range management direction is to improve 

unsatisfactory range conditions and to maintain seral grasslands where type conversions have occurred in 

the past. Prescribed fire is used to accomplish resource objectives outside of the wildland-urban interface. 

In MA 11 Verde Valley, a standard and guideline specific to pronghorn is “Determine the need to control 

invasion of undesirable plant species in antelope range to improve and protect wildlife habitat values. 

Where necessary, implement the control measures, such as prescribed burning to improve antelope 

habitat” (1987 Plan, page 168). Plan direction for these three management areas that call for vegetation 

treatments, avoidance of new road construction, and restrictions on off-road driving habitat improvement 

would improve grassland habitats for pronghorn and reduce disturbance from motorized vehicles. (See 

1987 Plan, pages 158 to 167 and 168 to170.) 

In 1998, the 1987 Plan was amended to include guidance specific to the Red Rock Area on the Red Rock 

Ranger District (Amendment 12). This included MA 27 – Savannah, which contains most of the Semidesert Grassland on the forest. In 2002, the 1987 Plan was amended to include guidance specific to the 

Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis Area (FLEA) on the Flagstaff Ranger District (Amendment 17). 

Amendment 17 provided management emphasis for all management indicator species based on the 

habitats contained in the new management areas, including grasslands. Additional emphasis was provided 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

714

to restore and maintain grasslands to benefit pronghorn and other grassland species in MA 32, Deadman 

Mesa, which contains Great Basin Grassland habitat.

Management Area 27, Savannah, is within the Sedona-Oak Creek planning Area and contains Semi-desert 

Grassland habitat interspersed with pinyon juniper evergreen shrub. One of the management emphases is 

that high-quality grassland supports a diversity of wildlife. Guidance is very strong in this management 

area for pronghorn and its habitat. (1987 Plan, pages 206-50 to 206-53.) Objectives, standards, and 

guidelines specific to pronghorn are:

• Acquire certain private parcels to reduce habitat fragmentation and otherwise improve antelope 

and grassland species habitat.

• This MA is characterized by an open vegetation structure. Use prescribed fire and other 

mechanical treatments to improve forage conditions for wildlife, particularly birds and antelope. 

Increase the area occupied by grasses and forbs while decreasing the area occupied by shrubs and 

trees in comparison to recent historic levels.

• Develop conditions that: 

♦ provide high-quality habitat for upland game birds and deer; 

♦ improve and expand antelope and grassland bird habitat through such means as fence, road, 

fire and human access management;

♦ provide adequate cover/security for animal shelter and foraging; and 

♦ improve forage conditions for wildlife, particularly quail. 

• Identify and protect antelope fawning areas. 

• Work together with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to develop hunting regulations for 

antelope below the Rim in Game Management Unit 6B to protect and enhance the antelope 

population there. 

• To minimize restriction of antelope movement, locate fences one-eighth mile from roads if road 

right-of-way fencing is required. Remove fences that are no longer needed; use smooth-bottom 

wires and meet the wildlife standards as stated in FSH 2670 and 2240 for all existing or new 

fences.

• Locate roads to maintain adequate cover for animal shelter and foraging between roads, 

especially in locations with high road densities.

• Use commercial and personal use firewood sales and Christmas tree cutting areas to reduce 

encroachment of invasive tree species and maintain open grassland habitat for antelope.

• Acquire large blocks of undeveloped private property to improve antelope habitat and to prevent 

impacts on National Forest lands from residential and associated infrastructure development. 

Acquire the Bradshaw Ranch property.

• Road and trail locations must consider antelope protection goals. Recreation goals are subordinate 

to antelope protection.

• If the demand can be demonstrated, allow commercial tours to provide opportunities for scenic 

viewing, natural history education, wildlife viewing and other activities that are compatible with 

antelope protection and Savannah MA goals. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

715

Management Area 32, Deadman Wash, is within the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Area (FLEA). It 

contains Great Basin Grassland adjacent to Pinyon Juniper with Grass and abuts Wupatki National 

Monument. Management emphasis is to restore and maintain grasslands and grassland-adapted wildlife 

species, especially antelope. 

In addition to management area standards and guidelines for grasslands, there are numerous other 

standards and guidelines throughout the 1987 Plan for pronghorn and big game species that provide 

emphases for management of pronghorn and to minimize impacts from roads and fences. They include 

guidance for fence specifications to allow wildlife passage, forage habitat improvement, off-road driving 

restrictions in fawning areas and other sensitive habitats, installation of gates or barriers to limit or restrict 

motorized access into key winter ranges, cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to 

meet their management goals and objectives, and involving interested groups or individuals in achieving 

objectives. Additionally, a forestwide standard and guideline that specifically mentions pronghorn 

antelope is included: 

• Interior fences in an allotment are generally three wire fences with the bottom wire smooth and 

conform to the above height restrictions. Install antelope passes, let-down fences, electric fences, or 

elk jumps wherever necessary to improve wildlife travelways (1987 Plan, page 69).

Implementation of these standards and guidelines for improvement of grasslands habitats will be benefit 

pronghorn. However, the 1987 Plan identifies quantitative objectives for timber, roads, and recreation 

developments (see Appendix H), but it does not for grassland improvement. Therefore, the expected 

amount of treatments to improve grasslands is not known, nor the expected timeframe. 

Alternative A Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of indicator habitat is not expected to change, but 

the quality of habitat could improve with continued implementation of the 1987 Plan, as amended. Plan 

guidance emphasizes habitat treatments to improve all three ERUs, with particularly strong guidance for 

MA 27, containing Semi-desert Grassland. Despite this guidance in alternative A, vegetation departure 

from reference conditions is expected to get worse (from low to moderate) for Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands, but the trend for Semi-desert Grassland improves from away to static (table 114). No other 

changes in departure or trend are expected under this alternative (table 114). Overall, there is essentially 

no projected change in habitat conditions; therefore, the habitat trend under the continued implementation 

of alternative A is declining from reference condition but supportive 1987 Plan direction would allow for 

improvement of grassland habitat if projects are planned to occur. 

Alternative A Projected Population Trend: The current population trend for pronghorn on the forest is 

stable (USDA Forest Service 201a). As noted above, grassland habitat that supports populations is 

expected to improve slightly for Semi-desert Grassland, but decline for Montane/Subalpine Grassland 

with continued implementation of alternative A. Direction in alternative A is strong for improvement of 

habitat and populations, so actions that occur in grassland habitat would be expected to improve 

conditions for pronghorn. Under implementation of alternative A to date, pronghorn population trend has 

improved from declining in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2002c) to stable in 2013 (USDA Forest Service 

2013). Therefore, the population trend for pronghorn after 15 years of implementing alternative A is 

expected to remain stable.

Alternative B (modified) 

This alternative (and the other action alternatives) have specific plan components for management of 

pronghorn and their habitat. A number of desired conditions and guidelines are found in forestwide 

direction as follows:
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

716

• A desired condition for constructed waters is that earthen stock ponds and wildlife waters remain 

accessible during pronghorn fawning season or drought (FW-ConstWat-DC-2). 

• Grassland desired conditions include language to provide food and cover for pronghorn (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-4 and FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-8). 

• Several guidelines within the forestwide Wildlife, Fish, and Plants section apply specifically to 

pronghorn and their ability to move freely across their habitat. The design of structural 

improvements such as fences should allow safe passage for pronghorn (FW-WFP-G-5), and fence 

construction, maintenance, and removal should consider pronghorn use of their habitat (FWWFP-G-6). Additionally, new road and trail locations should be designed to maintain fawning 

habitat for pronghorn (FW-WFP-G-13). 

• Another important plan component for pronghorn calls for applying timing restrictions to projects 

and activities that potentially negatively affect pronghorn, so that impacts to survival and 

successful reproduction are minimized (FW-WFP-G-8). 

Several management areas mention provision of habitat for pronghorn in the general description of the 

management areas. These are: Painted Desert, Volcanic Woodlands, Anderson Mesa, and HouseMountain Lowlands. Additionally, the Anderson Mesa MA includes pronghorn in its desired conditions as 

follows: 

• The Anderson Mesa pronghorn herd has a sustainable population, is able to move freely across 

the grasslands and open areas of the forest and woodlands, and can easily access winter range. 

(MA-AMesa-DC-3). 

In addition to the guidance above, other guidance applies to pronghorn through provision for pronghorn 

grassland indicator habitat. Desired conditions for the three grassland ERUs on the forest generally 

describe favorable habitat for pronghorn. Canopy cover of trees and shrubs is low, native vegetation 

dominates, and is distributed in natural patterns across the landscape (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1). 

Grassland conditions support frequent surface fires (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2), and are unfragmented 

and connected by soil type (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-3). 

Desired conditions and guidelines support maintaining vegetation conditions that provide food, water and 

cover for pronghorn, and would minimize disturbance in key fawning areas that could improve fawn 

recruitment into the population. 

Alternatives B (modified) (and the other action alternatives C, and D) have treatment objectives for 

grassland ERUs. They are to:

• Restore or improve at least 3,500 acres of Semi-desert Grasslands during each 10-year period 

over the life of the plan. (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1) 

• Restore or improve 10,800 to 12,400 acres of Great Basin Grassland during each 10-year period 

over the life of the plan. (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2) 

• Restore or improve 7,600 and 11,400 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland during each 10-year 

period over the life of the plan. (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-3) 

A total of approximately 11 to 13 percent of the grassland ERUs are planned to be restored or improved 

(table 115). Departure trends improve slightly for all three grassland types for vegetation and soils, 

although not enough to change any of the high departure values (table 114). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

717

Table 115. Acres and percent of ERU restored or improved under alternatives B (modified), C, and D

ERU ERU Acres Low Treatment Acres 

(%)

High Treatment 

Acres (%)

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 23,656 7,600 (32) 11,400 (48)

Great Basin Grassland 92,842 10,800 (12) 12,400 (13)

Semi-desert Grassland 89,701 3,500 (4) 3,500 (4)

Totals: 206,199 21,900 (11) 27,300 (13)

While these treatments would not be creating new acres of ERU habitat, using the desired conditions and 

guidelines to develop projects should improve the quality of pronghorn within these ERUs. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends designation of three wilderness areas: Abineau, Davey’s, and 

Strawberry. This would have a negligible effect on pronghorn, since very little habitat within these 

boundaries (table 116).

Table 116. Grassland ERU acreage within recommended wilderness areas in alternative B (modified)

ERU Wilderness Acres Total ERU Acres Percent of Total

Great Basin Grassland 2,327 92,843 2.5

Montane Subalpine Grassland 0 23,656 0 

Semi-desert Grassland 638 89,701 0.7

Designation as wilderness would provide pronghorn with minimal extra protections for the 2,327 acres of 

Great Basin Grasslands, since this ERU has low departure from reference conditions, and the habitat 

would be managed for the suite of wilderness characteristics, including native species and maintenance of 

natural processes. Recreation use would be managed to protect wilderness character and motorized traffic 

would no longer be allowed. Less than one percent of recommended wilderness occurs within Semidesert Grasslands, so effects would be negligible.

Alternative B (modified) includes a determination that mechanized recreation (e.g., bikes) would be not 

suitable in botanical and geological areas. This suitability determination includes an exception that would 

find mechanized recreation suitable on designated trails in these special areas. Allowing bicycles on 

designated trails in botanical and geological areas would have no appreciable effect on pronghorn. The 

amount of grassland habitat in botanical and geological areas is extremely small (table 117); therefore, the 

likelihood of disturbance to pronghorn is negligible.

Table 117. Acres of pronghorn habitat within botanical and geological areas

Area Great Basin 

Grassland

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland

Semi-desert 

Grassland

Cottonwood Basin Botanical and Geological Area 0 0 185

Fern Mountain Botanical Area 0 150 0 

Mogollon Rim Botanical Area 0 26 0 

Verde Valley Botanical Area 0 0 162

Totals Acres: 0 176 347
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

718

Overall, guidance contained in alternative B (modified) is not as explicit for management of pronghorn 

and their habitat as alternative A. Alternative B (modified) does have some similar guidance that would 

protect and enhance pronghorn and their habitats in the ERU desired conditions and guidelines, such as 

fawning season restrictions to reduce disturbance, fence standards/guidelines, and maintenance of habitat 

connectivity. However, alternative B (modified) lacks guidance that alternative A has, such as more 

comprehensive guidance for grassland habitats where management emphasis is provided for pronghorn, 

addressing vegetation management, range management, land acquisition, off-road driving, road 

construction, and other activities in standards and guidelines. Within alternative A’s MA 27, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines are particularly strong for pronghorn in Semi-desert Grassland which is the 

grassland habitat in poorest condition. Alternative B (modified)’s desired conditions for the Anderson 

Mesa MA call for stable pronghorn populations, but because populations are currently stable, this does 

not emphasize improving trends. Objectives for grassland habitats indicate that little active habitat 

improvement or restoration will be done in those habitats. A small proportion of Great Basin Grassland 

would be designated as wilderness, providing some extra protections. 

Alternative B (modified) Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of indicator habitat is not expected to 

change. Plan guidance does not emphasize pronghorn habitat and population enhancement as much as 

alternative A, so projects may not be designed to improve pronghorn habitat to the degree they would 

under alternative A. However, the quality of a portion of indicator habitat would improve from existing 

conditions under alternative B (modified) based on implementation of the grassland objectives, which will 

decrease the percent vegetation departure from reference conditions and improve trends (table 114). Fire 

departure is expected to move from high to moderate, but the trend is moving away from reference 

conditions. Fire departure remains highly departed and trending away for the other two ERUs. Because 

the percent departure from reference conditions is not known for alternative A, and it is unknown how 

much indicator habitat has been improved under the 1987 Plan, it is difficult to compare the amount of 

projected habitat improvement under alternative B (modified) to alternative A. Altogether, the trend for 

grassland habitat is expected to improve from “declining” from reference condition to stable to declining

from reference condition due to the improvement expected in habitat in some aspects, but not others. 

Alternative B (modified) Projected Population Trend: The current population trend for pronghorn is 

stable. As noted above, some of the grassland habitat that supports populations is expected to improve 

with implementation of alternative B (modified). Guidance includes guidelines for protection of fawning 

habitat and fence modifications to improve permeability for pronghorn. Desired conditions for the 

Anderson Mesa MA call for stable pronghorn populations, but this does not emphasize improving trends. 

Also, there is a lack of guidance for pronghorn within other programs such as lands and range. 

Considering the strength of plan direction, combined with projected habitat trends, projected population 

trend is stable. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified), but responds to suggestions from the public for more 

land to be managed in primitive and natural settings with reduced human-related disturbance for the 

benefit of recreation, and botanical and wildlife resources. Additional wilderness areas would be 

recommended on the forest to provide additional protection to botanical and wildlife resources. 

Alternative C also responds to ecological concerns related to presence or absence of old-growth 

composition and structure on the landscape. This analysis focuses on the differences from alternative B 

(modified), which are: 

1. Recommends 10 additional wilderness areas (91,757 total wilderness acres compared to 

8,733 acres recommended in alternative B (modified)).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

719

2. Determines snowmobile use to be unsuitable in the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas 

with a recreation opportunity spectrum objective of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive.

3. Determines recreational shooting to be unsuitable in botanical areas; geological areas; existing 

and proposed research natural areas; eight management areas that emphasize reduced-humanrelated disturbance; and in the Walnut Canyon, Sedona Neighborwoods, and Long Valley 

Management Areas, and parts of the Flagstaff Neighborwoods Management Area.

4. Restricts livestock grazing in research natural areas unless it supports, or would not affect, the 

research purpose of that research natural area.

5. Designates seven management areas (Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, 

Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, Second Chance, and modifies alternative B (modified)’s direction 

and boundaries in Anderson Mesa to further emphasize wildlife habitats) totaling 335,371 acres. 

6. Limits motorized dispersed camping in the eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance to current levels.

7. Limits public motor vehicle access in eight management areas that emphasize reduced humanrelated disturbance to current levels. 

8. Limits public road density in the Anderson Mesa Management Areas to an average of 1 mile or 

less of road per square mile. 

9. Limits large group recreation events and large commercial tours outside of developed sites in 

eight management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbance. 

10. Includes key direction from the 1987 plan for old growth that would be incorporated into the 

proposed revised plan:

o Allocation of at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest and woodland 

ERUs in any landscape by 6th code watershed; 

o Distribution of old growth would be in 100- to 300-acre stands;

o The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attributes Used to Determine Old Growth.

Recommended Wilderness Areas

Grassland ERUs acres in the 10 additional recommended wilderness areas is relatively minor, except for 

Semi-desert Grassland (table 118).

Table 118. Additional grassland ERU acreage within recommended wilderness areas in alternative C

ERU Alternative B

(modified) Acres

Alternative C 

Acres

Additional Alternative C 

Acres

Great Basin Grassland 2,327 2,327 0

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 0 6 6

Semi-desert Grassland 132 12,041 11,909

Designation as wilderness would provide pronghorn with some extra protections, since these habitats 

would be managed for the suite of wilderness characteristics, including native species and maintenance of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

720

natural processes. Recreation use would be managed to protect wilderness character and motorized traffic 

would no longer be allowed. However, Semi-desert Grasslands are highly departed from historical 

conditions, and management activities may be needed to help restore them. Designation as wilderness 

would limit management tools primarily to naturally ignited fire. The 11,909 additional acres in 

wilderness represents approximately 13 percent of the total ERU acreage for Semi-desert Grassland.

Since almost 87 percent of Semi-desert Grasslands would be outside of wilderness, this limitation on 

management tools on a small percentage of the ERU would not have a large negative effect on pronghorn. 

Snowmobile Use

The determination that snowmobile use would not be suitable in the Walnut Canyon Management Area 

and areas with a recreation opportunity spectrum objectives of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive 

is not expected to have any effect on pronghorn, as they generally move to lower elevations during the 

winter months. 

Recreational Shooting

Walnut Canyon, Red Rock, Long Valley, Flagstaff Neighborwoods, Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, East 

Clear Creek, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, and Pine Grove Management Areas contain 74,500 acres of 

pronghorn habitat (table 119). The determination that recreational shooting would not be suitable in these 

management areas could benefit pronghorn through less noise disturbance that can cause them to flee 

from the disturbance.

Table 119. Acres of pronghorn habitat within management areas where recreational shooting would not be 

suitable

Management Area Great Basin 

Grassland

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland

Semi-desert 

Grassland Total Acres

Anderson Mesa 54,803 1,105 0 55,908

Blue Ridge 0 169 0 169

East Clear Creek 0 62 0 62

Flagstaff Neighborwoods 210 2,919 0 3,129

Hospital Ridge 0 13 0 13

Jack’s Canyon 4,389 0 0 4,389

Long Valley 157 3,232 0 3,389

Pine Grove 370 346 0 716

Red Rock 0 33 6,393 6,426

Walnut Canyon 15 284 0 299

Total Acres by Grassland ERU 59,944 8,163 6,393 74,500

Percent of ERU Acres 64.6 34.5 7.1

Livestock Grazing in Research Natural Areas

None of the research natural areas contain grasslands, so restricting grazing until grazing supports or 

would not affect the research purposes of research natural areas would have no impact on pronghorn. 

Management Areas

Alternative C includes management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbances. There is 

no Semi-desert Grassland habitat within any of these 8 management areas, but Great Basin and 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERUs can be found in five of the management areas (table 120). Anderson 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

721

Mesa and Jack’s Canyon MAs contain the majority of grassland habitat (table 120). In general, desired 

conditions for these management areas envision providing low-disturbance wildlife habitat. 

Providing habitat for pronghorn is an emphasis for both Anderson Mesa and Jack’s Canyon MAs (MAAMesa-DC-11 and MA-Jack-DC-9). For both management areas, guidelines minimize human disturbance 

through limitations on motorized dispersed camping corridors (MA-AMesa-G-1, MA-Jack-G-1), roads 

(MA-AMesa-G-2, MA-Jack-G-2), and large group recreation events (MA-AMesa-G-4, MA-Jack-G-3). In 

the Anderson Mesa MA, road densities should not exceed an average of 1 mile per square mile (MAAMesa-G-3). Collectively, the desired conditions and guidelines would allow pronghorn to access and use 

available habitat with fewer disturbances within the two management areas that contain the bulk of 

indicator habitat. 

Pronghorn are not an emphasis species in the Blue Ridge, East Clear, Hospital Ridge, and Pine Grove 

MAs, but desired conditions envision properly functioning wildlife habitat in general (MA-BlueRidgeDC-5, MA-EastClr-DC-5, MA-HospRdg-DC-5, MA-PGrove-DC-5), and guidelines discourage additional 

motorized dispersed camping corridors, and limit motor vehicle access and large group recreation events 

(MA-BlueRidge-G-1, 2, 3, MA-EastClr-G-1, 2, 3, MA-HospRdg-G-1, 2, 3, MA-PGrove-G-1, 2, 3). This 

would result in some less disturbance to pronghorn using the relatively small amounts of indicator habitat 

in these management areas.

Table 120. Acres of grassland ERUs within alternative C management areas

Management Area Great Basin 

Grassland

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland Semi-desert Grassland Total Acres by MA

Anderson Mesa 54,803 1,105 0 55,908

Blue Ridge 0 62 0 62

East Clear Creek 0 169 0 169

Hospital Ridge 0 13 0 13

Jack’s Canyon 4,389 0 0 4,389

Pine Grove 370 346 0 716

Total Acres by 

Grassland ERU

59,562 1,695 0 61,257

Percent of ERU 

Acres

64.2 7.0 0

Old Growth

Retaining the old growth standards and guidelines from the 1987 Plan would have no impact on 

pronghorn and their grassland habitats. 

Overall, the positive impacts of designating the management areas that emphasize reduced human-related 

disturbances and the reduction in disturbance from recreational shooting in several management areas 

makes alternative C slightly stronger for pronghorn compared to alternative B (modified), despite the 

small negative impact from designation of wilderness on Semi-desert Grassland habitat.

Alternative C Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of indicator habitat is not expected to change. 

Vegetation, fire, and soil departure and trends for all three grassland ERUs are the same as alternative B

(modified) (table 114), therefore, the habitat trend is expected to be stable to declining from reference 

condition. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

722

Projected Population Trend: Compared to alternative B (modified), alternative C has positive impacts 

from inclusion of over 61,000 acres of grassland habitat within management areas that emphasize lowdisturbance wildlife habitat. Additionally, over 13,000 acres of grassland habitat would be unsuitable for

recreational shooting. Collectively, less disturbance could allow pronghorn to more successfully raise 

fawns, and disperse throughout their habitats. This makes alternative C slightly stronger for pronghorn 

populations compared to alternative B (modified), despite the small negative impact from designation of 

wilderness on Semi-desert Grassland habitat. Overall, the projected population trend is stable to 

increasing. 

Alternative D

This alternative would be similar to alternative B (modified), but differs in the following ways:

• No new wilderness areas would be recommended; and

• Expansion and/or increased access for future energy corridor needs would be provided for, and 

scenic integrity objectives along existing energy corridors for energy infrastructure would be 

modified.

Not adding any new wilderness areas makes this aspect of alternative D the same as alternative A and 

would avoid the small negative impact that adding new wilderness areas would have on Semi-desert 

Grasslands habitats analyzed in alternative C.

Overall, effects from alternative D are not appreciably different than alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D Projected Habitat Trend: Since the effects from this alternative are not appreciably 

different from alternative B (modified), the habitat trend under alternative D is stable to declining from 

reference condition. 

Alternative D Projected Population Trend: Since the effects from this alternative are not appreciable 

different from alternative B (modified), the projected population trend for alternative D is stable.

Summary of Trends by Alternative for Pronghorn

The amount of indicator habitat is not expected to change under any of the alternatives (table 121), but 

treatments within indicator ERUs are expected to improve habitat quality by opening up denser stands 

and/or improving forage quality. 

Plan guidance that emphasizes pronghorn habitat and populations is broadest and strongest in alternative 

A. Although the amount of past habitat improvement treatments under the 1987 Plan is not known, there 

has been an emphasis on habitat improvement on Anderson Mesa within Great Basin Grasslands due to 

the declining population trends noted in the early 2000s (USDA Forest Service 2002c). Since that time, 

forestwide pronghorn populations have increased, and the trend is now stable (USDA Forest Service 

2013). Grassland habitat trend on the forest has not improved toward reference conditions from 2002 to 

the present, likely due to insufficient treatments in habitat. Because alternative A does not specify 

quantitative objectives for grassland habitat, the amount of projected habitat improvement in unknown 

(table 121).

Objectives for alternatives B (modified), C, and D call for the same amount of treatment within indicator 

habitat (table 121). Plan guidance for pronghorn and their habitat varies slightly among alternatives but 

not enough to change trends. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

723

Table 121. Summary of pronghorn indicator habitat, population and habitat trends, and acres of expected 

treatment by alternative

Alternative Acres of Indicator 

Habitat Population Trend Habitat Trend Acres of Expected 

Habitat Improvement1 

A 206,199 Stable Declining Unknown

B (modified) 206,199 Stable Stable to declining 21,900-27,300

C 206,199 Stable to increasing Stable to declining 21,900-27,300

D 206,199 Stable Stable to declining 21,900-27,300

1

Based on objectives; alternative A does not have quantitative objectives.

Pygmy nuthatch

Affected Environment 

The pygmy nuthatch was selected as an indicator for mature ponderosa pine that contains large live trees 

and large snags (18 inches d.b.h. and larger). This species was also an indicator species for the 1987 Plan. 

Pygmy nuthatches and other cavity-nesting birds show a preference for large-diameter snags over 75 feet 

in height (Scott 1978). Snags greater than 15 inches are used significantly more than smaller snags, and 

snags in the 27- to 30-inch size class have more holes per snag that other size classes (Scott 1978). In 

Arizona, nest heights range from 7.2 to 62 feet, with a median of 24.6 feet (Corman and Wise-Gervais 

2005). 

Data on snags are often summarized in size classes of 12 to 18 inches and 18 inches and greater. Although 

pygmy nuthatches will use snags smaller than 18 inches d.b.h, larger snags are more valuable as habitat. 

Therefore, for the purposes of identifying and tracking snag indicator habitat, snags 18 inches and greater 

will be used.

The pygmy nuthatch shows a strong association with long-needled pines and their range is co-extensive 

(extends over the same space) with ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and similar species (Kingery and 

Ghalambor 2001). Pygmy nuthatches nest in dead pines and live trees with dead sections and prefer oldgrowth, mature, and undisturbed forests (Szaro and Balda 1982). The pygmy nuthatch also roosts in 

cavities, with up to 150 individuals being documented as roosting in one tree (Knorr 1957 and Sydeman 

and Güntert 1983 in Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). 

In Arizona, their range closely follows the distribution of ponderosa pine (Corman and Wise-Gervais 

2005). The majority of potential breeding records were in either pure pine or pine with Gambel oak. 

Although nests were found in other vegetation types, they all had a ponderosa pine component (Corman 

and Wise-Gervais 2005). 

Two main factors affecting population density are availability of nest sites and sufficient numbers of large 

cone-producing trees for food (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). 

In order to compare the amount of mature forest among alternatives, table 122 extricates data for older 

age classes from table 17 in the specialist’s report for vegetation and fire (USDA Forest Service 2016c).

States that include trees 20 inches d.b.h. and greater were used. The estimated amount of mature 

forest/old growth using these data is 78,123 acres, or 9.8 percent of the Ponderosa Pine ERU (table 122).

This is an underestimate of large trees and old growth on the landscape, since other states that include 

large trees are not included. See the specialist’s report, and Appendix C in particular (USDA Forest 

Service 2016c) for more detail.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

724

Table 122. Approximated amount of existing ponderosa pine old growth based on acreage in qualitative 

states that include very large trees

Ponderosa Pine ERU1 State Existing % and Acres

E – Very Large Trees, Open, Single Story 1.0%

7,972 acres

I - Very Large Trees, Closed, Single Story 5.2%

41,453 acres 

K - Very Large Trees, Open, Multiple Story 1.0%

7,972 acres

M – Very Large Trees, Closed, Multiple Story 2.6%

20,726 acres 

Totals: 9.8%

78,123 acres

1

Total Ponderosa Pine ERU acreage is 797,171 acres

The existing number of snags in Ponderosa Pine that are greater than12 inches d.b.h. per acre is 2.5 (table 

123). Snags 18 inches and greater, representing indicator habitat for the pygmy nuthatch, average 1.3 per 

acre (table 123).

Table 123. Existing ponderosa pine snags per acre

Ponderosa Pine Snag Size Number per Acre

12 to 18 inches 1.2

18+ inches 1.3

Total snags per acre: 2.5

Existing condition habitat trends: Using the comparative number from table 122, the current estimate 

for ponderosa pine old growth indicator habitat for the pygmy nuthatch is 636,939 acres (table 122). An 

analysis of ponderosa pine habitat trend found that late seral ponderosa pine is increasing slightly and that 

the large snag component is stable (USDA Forest Service 2013). Overall, the current trend for ponderosa 

pine old growth indicator habitat for the pygmy nuthatch is increasing slightly and large snag indicator 

habitat is stable. 

Existing condition population trend: The current forestwide population trend for pygmy nuthatch is 

stable to slightly declining (USDA Forest Service 2013). This is based on current data from the Breeding 

Bird Survey (BBS), the Christmas Bird Count (CBC), on-forest surveys by the Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory (RMBO), and a long-term research project on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District. State-level 

BBS data indicate a slight declining trend (USDA Forest Service 2013). Forest-specific CBC data do not 

indicate any discernible trend, but the RMBO surveys and the research project along the Mogollon Rim 

indicate declining trends (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Summary of Indicator Habitat for All Alternatives

The following tables summarize the amount of old growth as represented by the amount of very large 

trees projected to occur on the forest, old growth snags, and overall snags among alternatives (table 124

and table 125). Data are from the vegetation and fire specialist’s report (USDA Forest Service 2016c). 

These tables will be referred to in the following effects analysis discussions for each alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

725

Compared to existing condition, the overall amount of old growth is projected to increase similarly under 

all alternatives (table 124).

Table 124. Approximated amount of ponderosa pine old growth. Existing and 15-year projection for 

alternatives. 

Ponderosa Pine ERU1 State Existing % and 

Acres

All Alternatives 

(A, B (modified), 

C, and D – Low 

Treatment 

Objective

All Alternatives 

(A, B (modified), 

C, and D – High 

Treatment 

Objective

E – Very Large Trees, Open, Single Story 1.0%

7,972 acres

3.8

30,292

3.6

28,698

I - Very Large Trees, Closed, Single Story 5.2%

41,453 acres 

5.6

44,642

4.3

34,278

K - Very Large Trees, Open, Multiple Story 1.0%

7,972 acres

4.3

34,278

11.1

88,486

M – Very Large Trees, Closed, Multiple Story 2.6%

20,726 acres 

4.2

33,481

3.5

27,901

Totals: 9.8%

78,123 acres

17.9%

142,693

22.5%

179,363

1

Total Ponderosa Pine ERU acreage is 797,171 acres

Compared to existing condition, the number of snags per acre will increase within 15 years of 

implementation under all alternatives, but the number only very slightly increases from 1.3 to 1.4 snags 

per acre for snags greater than 18 inches d.b.h. that represent indicator habitat for the pygmy nuthatch 

(table 125).

Table 125. Ponderosa pine snags per acre for existing condition and 15-year projection by alternative

Number of Snags per Acre

Ponderosa Pine Snag Size Existing All Alternatives Low 

Treatment Objective

All Alternatives High 

Treatment Objective

12 to 18 inches 1.2 1.8 1.7

18+ inches 1.3 1.4 1.4

Total snags per acre: 2.5 3.2 3.1

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations 

of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 

206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 

206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

726

Alternative A 

The pygmy nuthatch is identified as a management indicator species for MA 3 – Ponderosa Pine and 

Mixed Conifer less than 40 percent slope, MA 4 – Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer greater than 

40 percent slope, MA 13 – Cinder Hills Off-Highway Vehicle Area, and in ponderosa pine habitats within 

the FLEA area. The management emphasis in MA 3 is on providing a sustained yield of timber and 

firewood production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, high quality water, and dispersed recreation. MA 

4 emphasizes wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and dispersed recreation. MA 13 emphasizes OHV 

recreation.

Ponderosa Pine Old Growth - Large trees and old growth attributes

Standards and guidelines that apply to old-growth ponderosa pine are found primarily within forestwide 

direction of the 1987 Plan. 

• A guideline for managing Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat includes a guideline to follow 

implement forest plan old-growth standards and guidelines to maintain and promote development 

of owl habitat (1987 Plan, page 65-5). 

• A standard to be applied in habitats outside of Mexican spotted owl protected and restricted 

habitat is to “Manage for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees and retain live reserve trees, 

snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer and spruce-fir forest cover types. Manage for old age trees such that as much old forest 

structure as possible is sustained over time across the landscape. Sustain a mosaic of vegetation 

densities (overstory and understory), age classes and species composition across the landscape. 

Provide foods and cover for goshawk prey.” (1987 Plan, pages 65-7) 

• Guidelines to apply outside of goshawk post-fledging areas are to manage for 20 percent in 

mature (VSS 5) and 20 percent in old (VSS 6) forest conditions. In ponderosa pine, canopy cover 

should average greater than 40 percent in VSS 5 and 6. Within post-fledging areas, canopy 

closures are slightly greater (1987 Plan, page 65-9). 

• Also in forestwide direction, a standard for old growth states: 

♦ Until the forest plan is revised, allocate no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem 

management area to old-growth as depicted in the table below (1987 Plan, page 70-1). 

• Several key forestwide guidelines for old growth include: 

♦ Strive to create or sustain as much old-growth compositional, structural, and functional flow 

as possible over time at multiple-area scales. Seek to develop or retain old-growth function on 

at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest type in any landscape (1987 Plan, 

page 70-1). 

♦ Consider the effects of spatial arrangement on old-growth function, from groups to 

landscapes, including de facto allocations to old-growth such as goshawk nest sites, Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers, sites protected for species behavior associated with 

old-growth, wilderness, research natural areas, and other forest structures managed for oldgrowth function (1987 Plan, page 70-1). 

♦ Forested sites should meet or exceed the structural attributes to be considered old growth in 

the five primary forest cover types in the southwest as depicted in the following table (1987 

Plan, page 70-1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

727

♦ Minimum structural aspects of ponderosa pine old-growth, depending on site, include 20 live 

trees per acre 14 or 18 inches in diameter, 70 to 90 basal area, and 40 to 50 percent canopy 

cover (1987 Plan, page 70-2). 

Forestwide standards and guidelines for fuels treatment include: 

• Limit the treatment of natural fuels to areas where fuel buildups are a threat to life, property, 

adjacent to old-growth areas, or specifically identified high resource values (1987 Plan, page 95). 

MA 3 direction for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer less than 40 percent slopes includes:

• Guidance for MA 3 refers to forestwide guidance for old-growth, with the added standard and 

guideline that old-growth stands are 100 to 300 acres in size (1987 Plan, page 129). 

In MA 4, guidance is to follow standards and guidelines in MA 3. 

Overall, guidance for maintaining or enhancing old growth conditions is explicit and quantitative. 

Guidance emphasizes sustaining as much old growth as possible and no less than 20 percent with the 

ponderosa pine type, with stand sizes ranging from 100 to 300 acres in size. These standards and 

guidelines that management activities and projects on the forest provide for the mature habitat and large 

snags needed by pygmy nuthatches (1987 Plan, pages 138 to 140). 

Ponderosa Pine Snags

Snag management is emphasized in the 1987 Plan. Standards and guidelines that apply to ponderosa pine 

snags are found in many sections of the 1987 Plan. 

Forestwide guidance for snags includes: 

• Mexican spotted owl guidance calls for retaining snags within protected activity centers (PACs) 

and other protected habitat. In Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat, substantive amounts of 

snags 18 inches in diameter and larger are to be maintained. In habitats of other forest types that 

are not protected or restricted, snags are to be retained while applying ecosystem management 

approaches (1987 Plan, pages 65-2 to 65-5). 

• Forestwide guidance for the northern goshawk calls for retaining snags throughout vegetation 

types, including ponderosa pine. Snags are defined for goshawk management as 18 inches in 

diameter or larger, and 30 feet tall or taller. In ponderosa pine habitat both within and outside of 

post-fledging areas, guidance is to leave at least 2 snags per acre. (1987 Plan, pages 65-7 to 65-

10). 

• Forestwide timber guidance for 10,000-acre (10K) blocks allows for exceeding minimum 

requirements for snags where it is good multiple-use management to do so (1987 Plan, page 70-

3). 

• Forestwide direction for old-growth, including snag management, specifies that minimum size 

criteria for ponderosa pine snags within old-growth are 14 inches in diameter and 15 feet tall on 

low sites, and 25 feet tall on high sites. Old-growth ponderosa pine should contain at least one 

ponderosa pine snag per acre. As with 10K blocks, minimum requirements are exceeded where it 

is good multiple use management to do so. (1987 Plan, pages 70-1 to 70-2.) 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

728

• Forestwide direction for fuel treatments is to identify and fire-line snags that are necessary to 

meet wildlife management objectives. Monitoring during burning is to occur to ensure they are 

protected (1987 Plan, page 95).

MA 3 direction for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer less than 40 percent slopes includes: 

• Guidance for osprey has several standards/guidelines for snags. Potential nest sites in preferred 

nesting habitat should have at least 2 snags per acre 20 inches or greater in diameter and should 

be at tall as the forest canopy or taller. Snags should be created if necessary to provide perch and 

nest sites. (1987 Plan, page 124.) 

• In the snag management section, a ponderosa pine snag is defined as a tree greater than 12 inches 

d.b.h. and 15 feet tall. An oak snag is defined as a tree greater than 10 inches d.b.h. and 10 feet 

tall. Within 10K blocks at least 50 percent of the forested land, 2 snags per acre will be 

maintained, and in high priority areas, 2.8 snags per acre will be maintained. Snags are not 

available for firewood unless designated because of being surplus to wildlife needs. Snags and 

potential snags will be identified and tallied for each stand. Potential snags will be left where 

needed to meet snag requirements. Salvage sales must meet snag standards and sales will be 

delayed if numbers are too low to allow salvage. In order to be considered a road hazard, a snag 

must lean toward the road and must be tall enough to reach the road if the snag fell and any snag 

not meeting both requirements will not be removed. (1987 Plan, pages 126 to 127.) 

• Silvicultural prescriptions in MA 3 discuss snag management as well (1987 Plan, pages 126 to 

127). For ponderosa pine shelterwood prescriptions, dead and poor risk trees in excess of planned 

snag densities can be harvested, but snags without red needles are retained for wildlife purposes 

except for wildfire killed trees. Prescriptions for Gambel oak call for retaining two cavity-bearing 

snags greater than 10 inches in diameter and live trees containing one or more cavities. If snag 

density objectives are exceeded in 10K blocks, areas containing excessive mortality may be 

harvested under the following criteria:

♦ Retain at least two snags per acre greater than 15 inches d.b.h. without signs of wildlife use. 

♦ Retain trees showing obvious signs of wildlife use or rot. 

♦ Retain trees with some live crown and less than 75 percent trunk girdling unless removal is 

necessary to meet overall objectives.

In MA 4, guidance is to follow standards and guidelines in MA 3. 

In FLEA, area-wide direction, protection of large trees and snags occurs when prescribed fires are used to 

improve and protect bald eagle winter roost areas (1987 Plan, page 206-73). 

Overall, guidance in the 1987 Plan for maintaining large snags is explicit and quantitative. Different 

definitions for ponderosa pine snag size and height definitions are confusing though, ranging from 12 to 

greater than 20 inches in diameter and 15 to greater than 30 feet tall. Because the standards and guidelines 

for the Mexican spotted owl and goshawk apply to all forested areas, the more recent guidance for snags 

in those sections is generally what is applied at the site-specific level. Therefore, at least two snags per 

acre 18 inches in diameter and 30 feet or greater are managed for in the ponderosa pine type, except in 

osprey habitat, where snag guidance is for two tall snags per acre 20 inches or greater in diameter. 

Additionally, standards and guidelines call for retaining two cavity-bearing Gambel oak snags greater 

than 10 inches in diameter per acre, plus live trees containing one or more cavities. Because pygmy 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

729

nuthatches favor snags greater than 15 inches in diameter, and more cavities are found in trees greater 

than 20 inches, standards and guidelines in alternative A for large snags benefits pygmy nuthatches. 

Alternative A Projected Habitat Trend: Under this alternative, the amount of old growth habitat 

increases from 78,123 acres to 142,693 acres (table 124). Qualitatively, plan guidance emphasizes 

sustaining as much old growth as possible and no less than 20 percent with the ponderosa pine type, with 

stand sizes ranging from 100 to 300 acres in size. The large snag component of pygmy nuthatch indicator 

habitat is projected to stay nearly the same, increasing only from 1.3 to 1.4 snags greater than 18 inches 

across the landscape (table 124). These standards and guidelines ensure that management activities and 

projects on the forest provide for the mature habitat needed by pygmy nuthatches. 

Overall, the trend for ponderosa pine old growth habitat for the pygmy nuthatch is increasing toward 

reference condition and large snag indicator habitat is stable with reference condition. 

Alternative A Projected Population Trend: The current forestwide population trend for pygmy nuthatch 

is stable to slightly declining. Given the projected habitat trends that would increase the amount of old 

growth in the largest size classes and keep large snags stable, implementation of alternative A should 

result in a halt to the declining population trend and improve the population trend for the pygmy nuthatch 

to stable. 

Alternative B (modified) 

Alternative B (modified) does not have specific guidance for the pygmy nuthatch, but does have a 

monitoring element (#21a) that inquires about the status and trends of this species. The Ponderosa Pine 

ERU provides indicator habitat for this species.

Ponderosa Pine Old Growth – Large trees and old growth attributes

Ponderosa pine old growth direction is contained primarily in forestwide desired conditions for the 

Ponderosa Pine ERU. Desired conditions envision that pine stringers that consist of large, old trees and 

that extend into lower elevations will persist. (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-4). Other desired conditions are 

described at three levels as follows.

At the landscape level (1,000 to 10,000+ acres), desired conditions envision a functioning ecosystem that 

contains old trees (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2 and 4). And specifically, desired conditionFW-TerrERU-PPDC-6 describes old growth as follows:

“Old-growth structure occurs throughout the landscape consistent with vegetative characteristics 

of a frequent, low-severity fire regime. Old growth is a component of uneven-aged forests, 

generally composed of groups of similarly aged trees and single trees interspersed with open 

grass–forb–shrub interspaces, but occasionally, it occurs in larger even-aged patches where local 

microsites facilitate less frequent fire regimes. Within-group variability may be low, but variation 

among groups is typically high, and proportions of patches with different developmental stages 

may vary, depending on site-specific conditions. Old-growth components include old trees, dead 

trees (snags), and dead and downed wood (coarse woody debris including large size classes). 

Snags and large dead and downed fuels are irregularly distributed across the landscape and may 

not exist in some patches. The location of old-growth components shifts on the landscape over 

time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).” 

At the mid-scale (10 to 999 acres), tree groups are a mosaic of tree groups that generally comprises an 

uneven-aged forest with all age classes present, including old growth (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-9). And 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

730

specific to northern goshawks, post-fledging family areas will contain 10 to 20 percent higher basal area 

in mid-aged to old tree groups. (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-12). 

At the fine scale (less than 10 acres), old-growth groups have interlocking (or nearly interlocking) 

canopies, contain trees of similar age characteristics and conditions, and consist of 2 to 40 trees per group 

(FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-13) 

In addition to desired conditions for Ponderosa Pine old-growth, there are three guidelines to apply to 

projects and activities:

• Protect existing old-growth from uncharacteristic natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1) 

• Develop old-growth where it is lacking (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-2) 

• In promoting uneven-aged conditions, retain presettlement trees, which are often the oldest and 

tallest trees (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-3) 

One other section of the plan addresses old-growth relative to pygmy nuthatch ponderosa pine indicator 

habitat. The Wildlife, Fish, and Plants section articulates that old trees and other attributes of mature 

stands provide habitat for associated species (FW-WFP-DC-7). 

Collectively, qualitative descriptions of desired conditions, and the guidelines for old-growth in the 

Ponderosa Pine ERU describe conditions that should provide good habitat for the pygmy nuthatch. 

Compared to alternative A, direction in alternative B (modified) is not as explicit with respect to the 

amount of old-growth ponderosa pine habitat to manage for. 

Ponderosa Pine Snags

Specific to the Ponderosa Pine ERU, forestwide desired conditions for snags are described at the 

landscape and fine scale. At the landscape level (1,000 to 10,000+ acres), desired conditions envision a 

functioning ecosystem that contains snags (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2 and 4), including snags as a 

component of old growth (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-6). Ponderosa pine snags are typically 18 inches or 

greater d.b.h., and average 1 to 2 snags per acre (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5). At the fine scale (less than 10

acres), desired conditions include dead trees and spike tops as components of old-growth groups (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-13). 

In addition to the desired conditions described above, a guideline for projects and activities calls for 

emphasizing the largest and tallest snags in a stand to provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds and other 

wildlife (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-5). This would be beneficial to identification and maintenance of the large 

snags that pygmy nuthatches require. 

Alternative B (modified) allows for management of snags at the lower end of the range within the 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) (FW-WUI-DC-5, FW-WUI-G-1). Although not as desirable for the 

pygmy nuthatch, large snags would still occur in the wildland-urban interface, just at a lower density than 

within the remaining ponderosa pine matrix.

Snags guidance that would apply to the pygmy nuthatch can also be found in forestwide desired 

conditions for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants, where snags are identified as an important attribute of old 

growth in all forest and woodland ERUs (FW-WFP-DC-7). 

Alternative B (modified) includes a determination that mechanized recreation (e.g., bikes) would be not 

suitable in botanical and geological areas. This suitability determination includes an exception that would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

731

find mechanized recreation suitable on designated trails in these special areas. Allowing bicycles on 

designated trails in botanical and geological areas will have no measurable effects on pygmy nuthatches. 

The only Ponderosa Pine habitat within botanical or geological areas is 49 acres in the Red Mountain 

Geological Area.

Overall, compared to alternative A, the guidance in alternative B (modified) is not as explicit or 

quantitative for protection and maintenance of ponderosa pine snags that pygmy nuthatches need for 

nesting and roosting. Snags are often mentioned as a desired part of the landscape, but specifics of 

guidance for maintenance and development of snags is lacking. Desired conditions do define snags as 

18 inches or greater in diameter but generally envision levels of 1 to 2 snags per acre, which is less than 

alternative A. No minimum heights are mentioned. Unlike alternative A, this alternative does not describe 

protections for snags when doing management activities such as timber harvest, thinning, or fuels 

treatment. And the desired conditions and guidelines that allow for lower levels of snags in the wildlandurban interface will provide less habitat for pygmy nuthatches in all areas identified as the wildland-urban 

interface. 

Alternative B (modified) Projected Habitat Trend: Although the plan language for managing old 

growth is not as explicit with respect to the amount of old growth ponderosa pine to manage on the 

landscape as alternative A, the same increase in old growth occurs in alternative B (modified) (table 124).

Qualitatively, plan desired conditions envision old growth throughout the landscape, and guidelines 

provide for protecting existing old growth, developing old growth where it is lacking, and protecting 

presettlement trees. As with alternative A, the large snag component of pygmy nuthatch indicator habitat 

is projected to stay nearly the same, increasing only from 1.3 to 1.4 snags greater than 18 inches across 

the landscape (table 124). These plan components provide for the mature habitat needed by pygmy 

nuthatches. 

Overall, the trend for ponderosa pine old growth habitat for the pygmy nuthatch is increasing and toward 

reference condition large snag indicator habitat is stable with reference condition.

Alternative B (modified) Projected Population Trend: The current forestwide population trend for 

pygmy nuthatch is stable to slightly declining. Given the projected habitat trends that would increase the 

amount of old growth in the largest size classes and keep large snags stable, implementation of alternative 

B (modified) should result in a halt to the declining population trend and improve the population trend for 

the pygmy nuthatch to stable. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified), but responds to suggestions from the public for more 

land to be managed in primitive and natural settings with reduced human-related disturbance for the 

benefit of recreation, and botanical and wildlife resources. Additional wilderness areas would be 

recommended on the forest to provide additional protection to botanical and wildlife resources. The 

primary difference related to pygmy nuthatch indicator habitat is that alternative C also responds to 

ecological concerns related to presence or absence of old-growth composition and structure on the 

landscape. This analysis focuses on the differences from alternative B (modified), which are: 

1. Recommends 10 additional wilderness areas (91,757 total wilderness acres compared to 

8,733 acres recommended in alternative B (modified)).

2. Determines snowmobile use to be unsuitable in the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas 

with a recreation opportunity spectrum objectives of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

732

3. Determines recreational shooting to be unsuitable in botanical areas; geological areas; existing 

and recommended research natural areas; eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance; and in the Walnut Canyon, Sedona Neighborwoods, and Long Valley 

Management Areas, and parts of the Flagstaff Neighborwoods Management Area.

4. Restricts livestock grazing in research natural areas unless it supports, or would not affect, the 

research purpose of that research natural area.

5. Designates seven management areas (Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, 

Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance) and modifies alternative B (modified)’s 

Anderson Mesa Management Area direction and boundaries to emphasize reduced human-related 

disturbance totaling 335,371 acres. 

6. Limits motorized dispersed camping in the eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance to current levels.

7. Limits public motor vehicle access in the eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance.

8. Limits public road density in the Anderson Mesa Management Area to an average of 1 mile or 

less of road per square mile. 

9. Limits large group recreation events and large commercial tours outside of developed sites in the 

eight management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbance. 

10. Includes key direction from the 1987 plan for old growth that would be incorporated into the 

proposed revised plan:

o Allocation of at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest and woodland 

ERUs in any landscape by 6th code watershed; 

o Distribution of old growth would be in 100- to 300-acre stands;

o The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attributes Used to Determine Old Growth.

Recommended Wilderness Areas

The acreage of Ponderosa Pine ERU within the 13 recommended wildernesses is only 0.6 percent 

(4,462 acres) of the total ERU acres (797,171 acres). Designation of these additional recommended 

wilderness areas would have a negligible effect on pygmy nuthatches and their habitat.

Snowmobile Use

The determination that snowmobile use would not be suitable in the Walnut Canyon Management Area 

and areas with a recreation opportunity spectrum objectives of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive 

would have a very minor positive impact by reducing the potential for disturbance since pygmy 

nuthatches do not migrate in the winter. 

Recreational Shooting

There are 18,131 acres of the Ponderosa Pine ERU in the Walnut Canyon MA, 16,098 acres in the Red 

Rock MA, 156,800 acres in the Long Valley MA, 40,933 acres in the Flagstaff Neighborwoods MA, 

48,284 acres in the Anderson Mesa MA, 21,011 acres in the Blue Ridge MA, 26, 480 acres in the East 

Clear Creek MA, 862 acres in the Hospital Ridge MA, 8,241 acres in the Jack’s Canyon MA, 2,158 acres 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

733

in the Limestone Pasture MA, 12,722 acres in the Pine Grove MA, and 1,444 acres in the Second Chance 

MA. The determination that these management areas are not suitable for recreational (non-hunting) 

shooting will minimally impact pygmy nuthatches by reducing the amount of disturbance from shooting. 

There are 18,131 acres of the Ponderosa Pine ERU in the Walnut Canyon MA, 16,098 acres in the Red 

Rock MA, 156,800 acres in the Long Valley MA, and 40,933 acres in the Flagstaff Neighborwoods MA. 

Designating these management areas as not suitable for recreational (non-hunting) shooting would 

positively impact pygmy nuthatches by reducing the amount of disturbance from shooting. 

Livestock Grazing in Research Natural Areas

Only 925 acres of Ponderosa Pine are in research natural areas. Restricting grazing would have no 

measurable impact on pygmy nuthatches or their habitats. Livestock grazing is low to nonexistent in these 

areas, because they have low forage production or are inaccessible for livestock due to naturally occurring 

topographical features.

Management Areas

Alternative C includes eight management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbances. 

Pygmy nuthatches are not identified as an emphasis species in these management areas, but in general, 

desired conditions for these management areas envision providing low-disturbance wildlife habitat. While 

changes in habitat are not expected compared to alternative B (modified), there is likely to be some 

reduction in disturbance to breeding and wintering pygmy nuthatches overall. 

Old Growth

Including key direction for old growth from the 1987 Plan is not expected to change the amount of 

ponderosa pine old growth over time for alternative C (see table 124). As described for the analysis of 

alternative A, plan language for maintaining or enhancing old growth conditions is more explicit and 

quantitative. Guidance emphasizes sustaining as much old growth as possible and no less than 20 percent 

with the ponderosa pine type, with stand sizes ranging from 100 to 300 acres in size. These standards and 

guidelines provide for the mature habitat and large snags needed by pygmy nuthatches. 

Overall, since alternative C is very similar to alternative B (modified), the effects are very similar as well.

The amount of ponderosa pine old growth and large snags is not different from alternatives A and B 

(modified). Alternative C would provide slightly less disturbance potential to breeding or wintering 

pygmy nuthatches through limitations of disturbance from snowmobiles and recreational shooting in 

some areas, and through management of additional management areas to provide low-disturbance wildlife 

habitat. 

Alternative C Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of old-growth ponderosa pine habitat and the 

number of large snags per acre are not expected to differ from the other alternatives. Therefore, although 

old-growth language is retained from the 1987 Plan, the effects do not differ from alternative B 

(modified). 

Overall, the trend for ponderosa pine old growth habitat for the pygmy nuthatch is increasing toward 

reference condition and large snag indicator habitat is stable with reference condition.

Alternative C Projected Population Trend: The current forestwide population trend for pygmy nuthatch 

is stable to slightly declining. The projected habitat trend is that the amount of old growth compared to 

existing conditions will increase, and large snags will remain stable on the landscape. Alternative C 

provides plan emphasis and direction that is expected to reduce disturbance impacts to pygmy nuthatches 

slightly, but not enough to change the population trend as described for alternative B (modified).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

734

Therefore, implementation of alternative C is expected to improve the population trend for the pygmy 

nuthatch to stable. 

Alternative D

This alternative would be similar to alternative B (modified), but differs in the following ways:

• No new wilderness areas would be recommended; and

• Expansion and/or increased access for future energy corridor needs would be provided for, and 

scenic integrity objectives along existing energy corridors for energy infrastructure would be 

modified.

Not adding any new wilderness areas makes this aspect of alternative D the same as alternative A. 

However, as analyzed above for both alternatives B (modified) and C, the addition of wilderness has a 

negligible impact on pygmy nuthatches compared to alternative A.

This alternative reduces the scenic integrity object from moderate or high, to low, for approximately 

32 miles along two utility corridors to accommodate future energy corridor expansion. Since the corridors 

already exist and disturbance to habitat has already occurred, it is unlikely that there would be additional 

impacts to pygmy nuthatch populations or habitat. 

Overall, effects from alternative D are not appreciably different than alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D Projected Habitat Trend: The projected trends are the same as for alternative B

(modified): increasing toward reference condition for ponderosa pine old growth, and stable with 

reference condition for large snags. 

Alternative D Projected Population Trend: Like alternative B (modified), the population trend for the 

pygmy nuthatch is stable. 

Summary of Trends by Alternative for Pygmy Nuthatch

Despite more explicit and quantitative guidance for old growth and snags in alternatives A and C, the 

amount of ponderosa pine old growth and large snag habitat does not differ among any of the alternatives 

(table 124 and table 125). Alternative C would result in slightly less disturbance to pygmy nuthatches, but 

is not different enough from the other alternatives to result in changes to the forestwide trends. Therefore, 

the trends compared to existing conditions are the same for all alternatives (table 126). All trend estimates 

are after 15 years of implementation.

Table 126. Summary of amount of pygmy nuthatch indicator habitat (old-growth ponderosa pine), and 

forestwide trends for habitat and populations by alternative

Alternative 

Acres of Old 

Growth Indicator 

Habitat

Large Snags1

per Acre in ERU Population Trend Habitat Trend Old Growth

Habitat 

Trend 

Snags

A 142,693 – 179,363 1.4 Stable Increasing Stable

B (modified) 142,693 – 179,363 1.4 Stable Increasing Stable

C 142,693 – 179,363 1.4 Stable Increasing Stable

D 142,693 – 179,363 1.4 Stable Increasing Stable

1

Large snags are defined as greater than 18 inches d.b.h.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

735

Mexican spotted owl

Affected Environment 

The Mexican spotted owl was selected as an indicator for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Ponderosa Pine (Gambel oak subtype) ERUs on the forest. This species 

was also an indicator species for the 1987 Plan where indicator habitat was identified as late seral mixed 

conifer and spruce-fir. Since then, the Mexican spotted owl had been found to use ponderosa pine-Gambel 

oak, and has not been found using spruce-fir habitat. The Mexican spotted owl prefers areas of wellstructured forests with high canopy cover, large trees, and other late seral characteristics for nesting and 

roosting habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). Although the nesting and roosting habit used by 

owls is well-structured, late seral habitat, all of the mixed conifer and pine-oak habitats are important to 

the owl and will be considered as indicator habitat. Descriptions of the Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Ponderosa Pine ERUs can be found in the Vegetation and 

Fire section in chapter 3 of volume 1 of this document. The forest does not have the Ponderosa Pine ERU 

broken out by pure pine and pine/oak, but it is estimated to be approximately 40 percent (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a), or approximately 318,868 acres.

Existing condition habitat trend: Summing the acres within the three indicator ERUs on the forest, the 

current estimate of indicator habitat for the Mexican spotted owl is 405,606 acres (table 127). Current 

information shows that mixed conifer and pine-oak habitats on the forest are moderately to highly 

departed from reference (historical) conditions and vegetation is moving away from reference conditions 

(table 127). Overall, the current trend for Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat is declining. 

Table 127. Amount of Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat (ERU acreage), and existing vegetative 

departure1 and trend relative to reference conditions

Indicator Habitat Existing Acres Vegetation Existing Departure1 (%) and Trend

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 49,595 Moderate (64), Away

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire 

37,143 Moderate (62), Away

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak2 318,868 High (79), Away

Total: 405,606

1

Departure was assessed as Low (0-33 percent), Moderate (34-66 percent), or High (>66 percent).

2

Departure and trends are from the ERU as a whole.

Existing condition population trend: Overall, the forestwide population trend for the Mexican spotted 

owl is not known for certain, but may be stable to declining (USDA Forest Service 2013). A few new 

PACs are still being found on the forest, and occupancy rates are up and down. The only demography 

study done on the forest found that the owls within the study area were declining at a rate of greater than 

10 percent per year from 1991 to 1997 (Seamans et al. 1999). Implementation of the population 

monitoring plan called for in the 2012 recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b) should help 

determine more accurate rangewide and Forest trends.

Summary of Indicator Habitat and Trends for All Alternatives

The following table summarizes the departure and trends for Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat ERUs 

for existing conditions and all alternatives (table 128). The table also summarizes the predicted departure 

and trends for the Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat ERUs under each alternative. This table will be 

referred to in the following effects analysis discussions for each alternative.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

736

Table 128. Summary of existing vegetation departure1 and trend relative to reference conditions.

Indicator Habitat (ERU) Vegetation Departure (%), Trend

Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, D

Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire2 

Moderate (64), 

Away

Moderate (42), Toward Low Treatment: Moderate (42),

Toward

High Treatment: Low (33), 

Toward

Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire

Moderate (62), 

Away

Moderate, Away Moderate, Static

Ponderosa Pine – 

Gambel Oak2,3

High (79), Away Low Treatment:

High Treatment:

Moderate (68), Toward 

Moderate (56), Toward

1

Departure was assessed as Low (0-33 percent), Moderate (34-66 percent), or High (>66 percent).

2

These ERUs were modeled to predict changes by alternative; other ERUs were qualitatively assessed.

3

Departure and Trend values are assumed to be the same as for the ERU as a whole.

Except for alternative A for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, all alternatives improve departure and/or 

trend for indicator habitats for the Mexican spotted owl. The greatest improvement for all three ERUs 

occurs under alternatives B (modified), C, and D. 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations 

of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 

206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 

206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Alternative A 

The Mexican spotted owl is identified as a management indicator for MA 3 (ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer on slopes less than 40 percent) and MA 4 (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer greater than 

40 percent slopes) and for these habitat types within the FLEA area. The management emphasis for MA 3 

is on a sustained-yield of timber and firewood, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, high quality water, and 

dispersed recreation. The management emphasis for MA 4 is on wildlife habitat and dispersed recreation.

The 1987 Plan has a standard to follow approved recovery plans. Specific standards and guidelines for the 

Mexican spotted owl (1987 Plan, pages 65 and 65-1 to 65-6) tier to the 1995 Mexican spotted owl

Recovery Plan. Guidance is provided for protected, restricted, and other forest and woodland types. A 

guideline for managing restricted habitat includes a guideline to follow implement forest plan old-growth 

standards and guidelines to maintain and promote development of owl habitat (1987 Plan, page 65-5). 

Similarly, a guideline for other forest and woodland types calls for retention of existing old growth in 

accordance with forest plan old-growth standards and guidelines (1987 Plan, page 65-5). 

While not specific to the Mexican spotted owl, additional old growth direction for ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer in the 1987 Plan is contained in several places. In forestwide direction, a standard to be 

applied in habitats outside of Mexican spotted owl protected and restricted habitat is to: 

• Manage for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees and retain live reserve trees, snags, downed 

logs, and woody debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

737

forest cover types. Manage for old age trees such that as much old forest structure as possible is 

sustained over time across the landscape. Sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and 

understory), age classes and species composition across the landscape. Provide food and cover for 

goshawk prey (1987 Plan, page 65-7). Guidelines to apply outside of goshawk post-fledging areas 

are to manage for 20 percent in mature (VSS 5) and 20 percent in old (VSS 6) forest conditions. 

In mixed conifer, canopy cover should average greater than 50 percent in VSS 5 and greater than 

60 percent in VSS 6. In ponderosa pine, canopy cover should average greater than 40 percent in 

VSS 5 and 6. Within post-fledging areas, canopy closures are slightly greater (1987 Plan, page 

65-10). 

Also in forestwide direction, a standard for old growth states: 

• Until the forest plan is revised, allocate no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem 

management area to old growth, as depicted in the table below (1987 Plan, page 70-10). 

Several key forestwide guidelines for old growth include: 

• Strive to create or sustain as much old-growth compositional, structural, and functional flow as 

possible over time at multiple-area scales. Seek to develop or retain old-growth function on at 

least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest type in any landscape (1987 Plan, page 70-

1). 

• Consider the effects of spatial arrangement on old-growth function, from groups to landscapes, 

including de facto allocations to old-growth such as goshawk nest sites, Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity centers, sites protected for species behavior associated with old-growth, 

wilderness, research natural areas, and other forest structures managed for old-growth function 

(1987 Plan, page 70-1). 

• Forested sites should meet or exceed the structural attributes to be considered old growth in the 

five primary forest cover types in the Southwest as depicted in the following table (1987 Plan, 

page 70-1). 

A forestwide fuels treatment standard and guideline is: 

• Limit the treatment of natural fuels to areas where fuel buildups are a threat to life, property, 

adjacent to old-growth areas, or specifically identified high resource values (1987 Plan, page 95).

Guidance for MA 3 refers to forestwide guidance for old growth, with the added standard and guideline 

that old-growth stands are 100 to 300 acres in size.

In MA 4, guidance is to follow standards and guidelines in MA3. 

Overall, guidance for maintaining or enhancing old growth conditions in the 1987 Plan is explicit and 

quantitative. Guidance emphasizes sustaining as much old growth as possible and no less than 20 percent 

in each ERU, with stands ranging from 100 to 300 acres in size. This is positive for the Mexican spotted 

owl in ensuring a high proportion of forested landscapes are maintained in old-growth conditions. 

Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat is not expected to 

change with continued implementation of the 1987 Plan. Old-growth will be managed to comprise at least 

20 percent of the landscape, primarily in blocks of 100 to 300 acres. Departure from reference conditions 

and/or vegetative trend is expected to stay the same or improve. While modest, these improvements are 

expected to change the existing trend from declining, to stable to slightly increasing with continued 

implementation of alternative A. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

738

Projected Population Trend: The current forestwide population trend for the Mexican spotted owl is 

stable to declining. Alternative A has strong guidance to manage for the Mexican spotted owl and there is 

a standard to follow approved recovery plans. Combined with the slightly increasing habitat trend noted 

above, the projected population trend for the Mexican spotted owl under alternative A is expected to be 

stable to slightly increasing.

Alternatives B (modified) and D

Alternative D does not differ from alternative B (modified) with respect to the Mexican spotted owl and 

its habitat, so the findings are the same. As summarized in the analysis for the Mexican spotted owl as a 

listed species, most of the guidance for old-growth ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat is in the 

form of desired conditions and generally describes conditions that would encompass habitat needs for 

Mexican spotted owl (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-6, 7, and 8; FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-3 and 4; FWTerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-2 and 7; and FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2 and 6). Like alternative A, these 

two alternatives point to guidance in recovery plans and emphasize recovery of the Mexican spotted owl

(FW-WFP-G-1) that address habitat improvement and protection from disturbance. Alternatives B 

(modified) and D also have an objective to implement at least 20 activities that contribute to recovery of 

listed species (FW-WFP-O-1), highlighting the revised plan’s intention to recover species. However, 

alternative A has more explicit and quantitative guidance for the minimum amount of old growth to 

manage for and maintain on the landscape, and provides for larger groups (stand size) in old-growth 

conditions, which would better ensure that Mexican spotted owl mature and old forests are managed for.

Projected Habitat Trend: The amount of pine-oak mixed and conifer habitat is not expected to change 

under alternatives B (modified) or D. Vegetation trends improve for all three ERUs compared to existing 

conditions, particularly for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Ponderosa Pine, and more so toward

the upper end of treatment objectives (table 128). The current trend for Mexican spotted owl indicator 

habitat is declining, so the expected improvement in departure and trend for Mexican spotted owl (table 

128) is expected to change the trend to stable to increasing toward reference condition.

Projected Population Trend: The existing population trend for the Mexican spotted owl on the forest is 

stable to declining. Given the expected improvement in habitat trend through implementation of 

alternative B (modified), combined with implementing actions and projects to benefit and contribute to 

recovery, the projected population trend for the Mexican spotted owl under alternative A is expected to be 

stable to slightly increasing.

Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified), but responds to suggestions from the public for more 

land to be managed in primitive and natural settings with reduced human-related disturbance for the 

benefit of recreation, and botanical and wildlife resources. Additional wilderness areas would be 

recommended on the forest to provide additional protection to botanical and wildlife resources. The 

primary difference related to Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat is that alternative C retains key 

elements of old growth from the 1987 Plan. This analysis focuses on the differences from alternative B 

(modified), which are:

1. Recommends 10 additional wilderness areas (91,757 total wilderness acres compared to 

8,733 acres recommended in alternative B).

2. Determines snowmobile use to be unsuitable in the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas 

with a recreation opportunity spectrum objectives of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

739

3. Determines recreational shooting to be unsuitable in botanical areas; geological areas; existing 

and proposed research natural areas; eight management areas that emphasize reduced humanrelated disturbance; and in the Walnut Canyon, Sedona Neighborwoods, and Long Valley 

Management Areas, and parts of the Flagstaff Neighborwoods Management Area.

4. Restricts livestock grazing in research natural areas unless it supports, or would not affect, the 

research purpose of that research natural area.

5. Designates seven management areas (Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, 

Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance) and modifies alternative B (modified)’s 

Anderson Mesa Management Area direction and boundaries to emphasize reduced human-related 

disturbance, totaling 335,371 acres. 

6. Limits motorized dispersed camping in the eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance to current levels.

7. Limits public motor vehicle access in the eight management areas that emphasize reduced 

human-related disturbance.

8. Limits public road density in the Anderson Mesa Management Area to an average of 1 mile or 

less of road per square mile. 

9. Limits large group recreation events and large commercial tours outside of developed sites in the 

eight management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbance.

10. Includes key direction from the 1987 Plan for old growth that would be incorporated into the 

proposed revised plan:

o Allocation of at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest and woodland 

ERUs in any landscape by 6th code watershed; 

o Distribution of old growth would be in 100- to 300-acre stands;

o The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attributes Used to Determine Old Growth.

Recommended Wilderness Areas

The acreage of Ponderosa Pine ERU within the 13 recommended wildernesses is only 0.6 percent 

(4,462 acres) of the total ERU acres (797,171 acres). The acreage of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 

is 347 acres (0.9 percent) and 283 acres (0.6 percent) for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire. Designation 

of these additional recommended wilderness areas would have a negligible effect on the Mexican spotted 

owl and its indicator habitat.

Snowmobile Use

There are approximately 1,830 acres of PACs within the Walnut Canyon Management Area. The 

determination that snowmobile use would not be suitable in that management area and other areas with a 

recreation opportunity spectrum objectives of semi-primitive non-motorized or primitive would have a 

positive impact by reducing the potential for disturbance to Mexican spotted owl s.

Recreational Shooting

Recreational (non-hunting) shooting has the potential to disturb nesting or roosting owls. Placing 

restrictions on recreational shooting in botanical areas, geological areas, existing and recommended 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

740

research natural areas, and management areas will benefit nesting and roosting owls by reducing the 

amount of disturbance from shooting. 

Livestock Grazing in Research Natural Areas

PAC and/or critical habitat occurs in several research natural areas (see Biological Assessment, Overby et 

al. 2017). Restricting grazing could reduce impacts on grasses, forbs, and shrubs used by prey species for 

food and cover. However, livestock grazing is low to nonexistent in these areas because they have low 

forage production or are inaccessible for livestock due to naturally occurring topographical features.

Management Areas

Alternative C includes management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbances. In general, 

desired conditions for these management areas envision providing low-disturbance wildlife habitat. The 

Mexican spotted owl is an emphasis species for Anderson Mesa, Pine Grove, Jack’s Canyon, East Clear, 

Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, and Knoll Lake MAs. Designation of these MAs would, therefore, be 

expected to reduce disturbance to owls, improving the quality of their habitat. 

Old Growth

Including key direction for old growth from the 1987 Plan is not expected to change the amount of 

ponderosa pine old growth over time for alternative C (see table 124). As described for the analysis of 

alternative A, plan language for maintaining or enhancing old growth conditions is explicit and 

quantitative. Guidance emphasizes sustaining as much old growth as possible and no less than 20 percent 

with the ponderosa pine type, with stand sizes ranging from 100 to 300 acres in size. These standards and 

guidelines provide for the mature habitat and large snags needed by the Mexican spotted owl. 

Overall, since alternative C is very similar to alternatives B (modified) and D, the effects are very similar 

as well. The primary emphasis of alternative C is to reduce human disturbance, which would benefit the 

Mexican spotted owl through suitability determinations on snowmobile use and recreational shooting, and 

an emphasis on less human disturbance in eight management areas.

Projected Habitat Trend: Like alternatives B (modified) and D, the amount of pine-oak and mixed 

conifer habitat is not expected to change under alternative C. Vegetation trends improve for all three 

ERUs compared to existing conditions, particularly for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Ponderosa 

Pine, and more so toward the upper end of treatment objectives (table 128). The current trend for Mexican 

spotted owl indicator habitat is declining, so the somewhat modest expected improvement in departure 

and trend for MSO is expected to change the trend to stable to increasing toward reference condition. 

Projected Population Trend: The existing population trend for the Mexican spotted owl on the forest is 

stable to declining. Given the expected improvement in habitat trend through implementation of this 

alternative, combined with the additional direction that will reduce disturbance, the projected population 

trend for the Mexican spotted owl under alternative C is expected to be stable to increasing.

Summary of Trends by Alternative for the Mexican Spotted Owl

Forestwide habitat trend is projected to improve under all alternatives (table 129), but slightly less so for 

alternative A, since less improvement is expected in trend toward reference conditions for the mixed 

conifer ERUs (table 128). Forestwide population trend is also expected to improve under all alternatives 

(table 129). Primarily because of the emphasis on less human disturbance, the population trend under 

alternative C is projected to be greater than the other alternatives (table 129).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

741

Table 129. Summary of amount of Mexican spotted owl indicator habitat, and population and habitat trends 

by alternative

Alternative Acres of Indicator Habitat Habitat Trend Population Trend

A 405,606 Stable to Slightly Increasing Stable to Slightly Increasing

B (modified) 405,606 Stable to Increasing Stable to Slightly Increasing

C 405,606 Stable to Increasing Stable to Increasing

D 405,606 Stable to Increasing Stable to Slightly Increasing

Migratory Birds

Affected Environment 

The primary direction for management of migratory birds is contained within the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, Executive Order (EO) 13186, and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) titled: 

Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. The MOU was signed in 2008, 

and was extended to be in effect through December 31, 2017. The MOU identifies strategies and outlines 

responsibilities that promote conservation of migratory birds and avoid or minimize adverse impacts. 

Region 3 guidance to implement the intent of the EO and MOU is to evaluate effects to priority species, 

designated important bird areas, and over-wintering areas.

Three sources were used to identify priority species: (1) Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan 

(Rosenberg et al. 2016), (2) Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), 

and (3) Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022 (AZGFD 2012). Using these sources, a list of 

migratory birds that occur on the forest was developed. In the Partners in Flight plan (PIF Plan), birds 

listed for the Intermountain West and Sonoran Joint Ventures were evaluated. Birds listed in Bird 

Conservation Regions 16 and 34 were evaluated from the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC 2008) 

plan, as were Tier 1a and 1b Species of Greatest Conservation Need from the Arizona State Wildlife 

Action Plan.

From those lists, 31 priority bird species were identified. Of those, 25 breed on the forest and the other 6 

species (Cassin’s finch, chestnut-collared longspur, grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, Ferruginous 

hawk, and lark bunting) are present in the winter. Federally-listed and Forest Service Sensitive species 

were not included, as projects evaluate effects under the ESA and as Sensitive species. Eagles are 

addressed in the section above on Eagles. 

Table 130. Coconino NF priority migratory birds

Common Name Occurrence Type Nest Type Primary ERUs

Band-tailed Pigeon breeding tree Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine (Gambel oak 

subtype)

Bell's Vireo breeding shrub, tree Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

Bendire's Thrasher breeding shrub, tree Semi-desert Grassland

Black-chinned 

Sparrow 

breeding shrub Interior Chaparral

Black-throated Gray 

Warbler

breeding tree Pinyon Juniper Woodland, Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

742

Common Name Occurrence Type Nest Type Primary ERUs

Brewer's Blackbird breeding, 

wintering

ground, 

shrub, trees

Wetlands, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest

Cassin's Finch wintering n/a Ponderosa Pine

Chestnut-collared 

Longspur

wintering n/a Semi-desert Grassland

Common Black-Hawk breeding tree Montane Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest, Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest

Common Nighthawk breeding ground Ponderosa Pine (including P-O) Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland, Great Basin Grassland

Elf Owl breeding possible, 

migration

tree Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

Evening Grosbeak breeding; 

wintering

tree Mixed Conifer, Aspen and Maple

Ferruginous Hawk wintering, 

migration

n/a Grasslands

Flammulated Owl breeding tree Ponderosa Pine

Grace's Warbler breeding tree Ponderosa Pine

Grasshopper Sparrow wintering n/a Semi-desert Grassland

Gray Vireo breeding tree Pinyon Juniper Woodland, Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub

Lark Bunting wintering, 

migration

n/a Semi-desert Grassland, Desert Communities

Lewis's Woodpecker breeding tree Ponderosa Pine

Lincoln's Sparrow breeding, 

wintering

ground Montane Willow Riparian Forest (breeding)

Lucy's Warbler breeding tree Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

MacGillivray's 

Warbler

breeding ground Montane Willow Riparian Forest, Aspen and 

Maple, Mixed Conifer

Mexican Whip-poorwillbreeding ground Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak, Mixed Conifer

Olive Warbler breeding tree Ponderosa Pine (including P-O), Mixed Conifer

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher

breeding tree Mixed conifer (open), Ponderosa Pine (including 

P-O)

Phainopepla breeding tree Desert Communities

Red-faced Warbler breeding ground Mixed conifer (open), Ponderosa Pine (including 

P-O), Montane Willow Riparian

Savannah Sparrow wintering n/a open habitats forestwide

Virginia's Warbler breeding ground, shrub Many; shrub component important

Wood Duck breeding, 

wintering

tree Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

Yellow Warbler 

(sonorana ssp.)

breeding tree Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest; Mixed 

Deciduous Riparian Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

743

Table 131. Ecological response unit (ERU) acreage within portions of important bird areas (IBA) on the forest

ERU Anderson 

Mesa

Lower 

Oak 

Creek

Mogollon 

Rim 

Snowmelt 

Draws

Salt and 

Verde 

Riparian 

Ecosystem

Tuzigoot

Desert Communities 339 30

Grassland, Great Basin 47,122

Grassland, Montane/Subalpine 2,397 390

Grassland, Semi-desert 885

Interior Chaparral 39

Mixed Conifer with Aspen 258

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 33,827

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 1,952 37

Pinyon Juniper with Grass 50,968

Pinyon Juniper Woodland 15,853

Ponderosa Pine 39,808 7,226

Riparian, Cottonwood Willow 90 4 

Riparian, Mixed Broadleaf 471 3 

Riparian, Montane Willow 60 630

Water 1,744 45

Wetland Cienega 9,229 261

Total Coconino IBA Acres: 167,439 3,686 42,379 130 34

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing for sustainable populations 

of native species and improving and protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23, 64, 64-1, 66, 95, 108-2, 180, 187, 206-9, 206-11, 206-12, 206-13, 206-23, 

206-30, 206-32, 206-66, 206-67, 206-71, 206-72, 206-79, 206-87, 206-89, 206-98, 206-103, 206-105, 

206-108, 206-109, 206-114; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and FW-Eco-DC-1). See At-risk Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Most Forest Service management activities would not meet the definition of take under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, which is “... to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR 10.12). Vegetation removal or 

destruction is not considered a taking; however, activities done during breeding seasons, such as hazard 

tree or snag removal, timber harvest, fuels reduction, prescribed fire could result in unintentional take if 

active nests with eggs or young are present in trees, shrubs or on the ground. These activities would occur 

under all alternatives considered in this analysis. The EO and MOU would be reviewed and elements 

incorporated into all projects and activities as applicable to promote conservation of migratory birds and 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts.

Under all alternatives, mechanical vegetation treatment and prescribed/managed fire are most frequently 

planned in the Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERUs. The amount of habitat 

expected to be treated over the next 10 to 15 years does not differ among alternatives, except that the high 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

744

range of potential acreage to be treated mechanically is 2,900 acres in alternative A, and 15,000 acres in 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D (Kipervaser et al. 2016). 

Alternative A – 1987 Plan

There are no specific goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines for migratory birds in the 1987 Plan. 

Alternative A was implemented before EO 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds was signed in January 10, 2001, to promote the conservation of migratory birds. As a 

result, many of the topics that must be considered pursuant to this order were not incorporated into plan 

direction. Alternative A does contain an overall goal to “Manage habitat to maintain viable populations of 

wildlife and fish species and improve habitat for selected species” (1987 Plan, page 22-1) that is inclusive 

of migratory birds. 

Forestwide Direction

The following standards and guidelines area are applicable to migratory birds and their habitat, but are 

very general in nature:

• Inventory and evaluate wildlife and fish habitat. Use the best available resource data and 

technical expertise to identify habitat objectives and prepare implementation schedules for key 

habitats (1987 Plan, page 64).

• Improve vegetation conditions through seeding a mixture of species of grass, forbs, forage, and 

browse species desirable to wildlife (1987 Plan, page 66).

The following guidance would be applicable only to ferruginous hawks, as they are the only priority 

raptor species on the forest’s list:

• Construct raptor perch, roost, and nest structures where applicable to improve habitat (1987 Plan, 

page 66).

• Powerlines and towers are built (construction or reconstruction) to specifications compatible with 

raptor use (1987 Plan, page 80).

In general, the guidance in the 1987 Plan provides limited specific direction for migratory birds. Effects 

on migratory birds are further evaluated in the following sections by considering the types of management 

actions that occur within the ERUs that support migratory birds. 

Mixed Conifer and Ponderosa Pine 

Priority breeding birds that use mixed conifer and/or ponderosa pine as primary habitats are band-tailed 

pigeon, common nighthawk, evening grosbeak, flammulated owl, Grace’s warbler, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

MacGillivray’s warbler, Mexican whip-poor-will, olive warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, and red-faced 

warbler. The evening grosbeak uses these ERUs when aspen/maple are present. Additionally, the Cassin’s 

finch is a winter visitor, primarily in ponderosa pine. 

Management for mixed conifer habitats is contained primarily in direction for MA 3 and MA 4. 

Management emphases are on a combination of multiple uses, including wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, 

pages 117 and 139). Standards and guidelines provide for maintenance of stand diversity through 

integrated stand management. Snag and old-growth management is emphasized. Snags are defined as a 

tree greater than 12 inches d.b.h. and 15 feet tall. Snag standards and guidelines call for a minimum of 

200 snags per 100 acres on 50 percent of forested lands within 10K blocks (1987 Plan, page 126, 127, and 

143). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

745

Stand diversity requirements and snag management guidance in MA 3 and 4 would contribute positively 

to priority bird habitat preferences for the presence of tall trees and snags, and openings and edges within 

mixed conifer forests. Additionally, guidance for a diversity of age classes and canopy closures, and 

management for snags and openings will also contribute positively to priority bird habitat needs. 

Most of the mechanical tree harvest activities that occur on the forest occur in these habitat types. Under 

this alternative, approximately 2,900 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and between 50,000 to 

260,500 acres of Ponderosa Pine acres are projected to be mechanically treated over a 10-year period 

(Kipervaser et al. 2016). Eight of 11 priority species are tree-nesters. If tree removal occurs during the 

breeding season, some nests or young could be lost. However, treatment acres are relatively small 

proportions of the overall ERU acreage—approximately 6 percent of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

acreage, and approximately 6 to 33 percent of Ponderosa Pine acreage.

Prescribed fire is another management tool used to manage for desired conditions in these ERUs. Under 

alternative A, prescribed fire is projected to be applied to approximately 8,000 acres of Mixed Conifer 

with Frequent Fire, and between 150,000 to 200,000 acres over a 10-year period (Kipervaser et al. 2016). 

Prescribed fire has potential to affect ground or shrub-nesters (common nighthawk, MacGillivray’s

warbler, Mexican whip-poor-will, and red-faced warbler) if prescribed fire is applied in active nesting 

areas during the breeding season. As with mechanical tree harvest acres, prescribed burn acreages are 

relatively small proportions of the overall ERU acreages – approximately 16 percent of Mixed Conifer 

with Frequent Fire, and 19 to 25 percent of Ponderosa Pine acreage.

Pinyon Juniper

Priority breeding birds that use pinyon juniper types are the black-throated gray warbler, common 

nighthawk, and gray vireo. Management for pinyon juniper is contained primarily in direction for MAs 7 

and 8. In the 1987 Plan, management of wildlife habitat is identified as a key emphasis in MAs 7 and 8

(1987 Plan, pages 148 and 156). Old growth is provided on slopes greater than 15 percent, with stand 

sizes ranging from 100 to 300 acres (1987 Plan, pages 148 and 151). Stand diversity is established and 

maintained through integrated stand management to provide suitable habitat for wildlife (1987 Plan, page 

148). 

Priority species need mature or old-growth stands, generally open, with good ground cover and a shrub 

component. Collectively, the guidance in the 1987 Plan for pinyon juniper generally contributes positively 

to migratory bird habitat by emphasizing maintenance of diverse conditions with old growth and snags, 

providing key habitats for migratory birds. 

Activities within pinyon juniper habitats with the potential to affect priority bird species include fuelwood 

cutting and prescribed fire. Removal of trees during the breeding season could remove nests of the blackthroated gray warbler, and gray vireo. Prescribed fire is most likely to impact the ground-nesting common 

nighthawk. 

High-elevation Grasslands (Montane/Subalpine Grassland and Great Basin Grassland) 

Priority breeding birds that use high- elevation grasslands are Brewer’s blackbird, common nighthawk, 

ferruginous hawk. Direction for management of grasslands in contained primarily in MA 9 (Mountain 

Grassland), MA 10 (Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper above the Rim), and MA 11 (Verde Valley). 

Wildlife habitat is a management emphasis for all three management areas (1987 Plan, pages 158, 162, 

and 166). Guidance calls for improvement of meadow and grassland habitats using a variety of methods, 

including conifer removal, gully stabilization, reseeding, fencing, and prescribed burning (1987 Plan, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

746

pages 159, 164, and 168). Conifer removal typically involves removal of small encroaching trees, so is 

not very likely to affect the ground-nesting common nighthawk, or remove perch trees for wintering or 

migrating ferruginous hawks. Brewer’s blackbirds usually nest in loose colonies, and nest in shrubs and 

trees and on the ground, so there is some potential to affect this species through conifer removal. 

Prescribed burning is an activity that has the potential for removal of nests and disturbance to the groundnesting common nighthawk, and the ground- and shrub/tree-nesting Brewer’s blackbird.

Chaparral 

There is no specific guidance for management of chaparral in the 1987 Plan. It is mentioned as a habitat 

component in some wildernesses and in MA 11, Verde Valley (1987 Plan, page 166). Little active 

management occurs in chaparral, and if a person-caused or natural ignition starts a fire, it tends to be 

stand-replacing. 

Although there is no specific guidance, the lack of management activities in chaparral results in little 

impacts, plus or minus, to black-chinned sparrows and their habitat. 

Desert Communities and Semi-Desert Grasslands

Priority species that use these ERUs for breeding are Bendire’s thrasher and phainopepla. Additionally, 

the chestnut-collared longspur, Ferruginous hawk, grasshopper sparrow, and lark bunting use these 

habitats for overwintering. Management guidance for these habitats is contained primarily in MA 11, 

Verde Valley. Management emphases are watershed condition, range management, wildlife habitat for 

upland game birds, and dispersed recreation. 

Guidance for range forage improvement allow for vegetative treatments where overstories include 

mesquite, catclaw, Canotia, manzanita, and turbinella oak with the objective to convert to a lower 

successional and more productive state (1987 Plan, page 168.) 

Essentially, there is no mention of providing for the brushy grassland states that Bendire’s thrasher and 

sage sparrows use. Guidance is lacking in the 1987 Plan to protect and enhance habitats for these 

migratory species. Without sideboards, management activities like prescribed fire could directly impact 

breeding bird nests, and lack of habitat improvement could impact the use of these habitats by wintering 

priority birds.

Riparian – High-elevation (Montane Willow and Mixed Broadleaf) and Low-elevation (Cottonwood 

Willow)

Priority breeding birds that use riparian forest habitats are Bell’s vireo, Brewer’s blackbird, common 

black hawk, elf owl, Lincoln’s sparrow, Lucy’s warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, red-faced warbler, wood 

duck, and yellow warbler. Management guidance for riparian habitat is primarily contained with MA 12. 

Management of wildlife habitat is a key emphasis (1987 Plan, page 172). The goal in the 1987 Plan is to 

recover 80 percent of riparian habitats by year 2030, with the remaining 20 percent significantly improved

(1987 Plan, page, 172). There are multiple standards for maintaining overstory, three age classes of 

woody vegetation, stream shading, etc. (1987 Plan, page 174). In high-elevation habitats, at least 

80 percent of the potential shrub cover is to be maintained (1987 Plan, page 174). Standards and 

guidelines call for protection of riparian from grazing (1987 Plan, page 174). 

Although all of MA 12 is for riparian management, riparian habitat guidance is scattered throughout the 

1987 Plan. In forestwide wildlife, direction ensures that riparian standards apply to all areas, even if they 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

747

are too small to manage (1987 Plan, page 64). Standards and guidelines for Mexican spotted owl and 

goshawk also emphasize riparian management (1987 Plan, pages 65-5 and 65-8). Riparian habitat is 

identified as restricted habitat for Mexican spotted owl (1987 Plan, page 65), and management is to 

maintain and restore healthy ecosystems and to improve degraded conditions as soon as possible (1987 

Plan, page 65-5). Utilization standards and guidelines for livestock grazing are to be implemented to 

maintain and restore riparian habitats (1987 Plan, page 65-5). Similarly, goshawk guidelines also call for 

maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems (1987 Plan 65-8). 

Forestwide range direction identifies riparian condition as a potentially significant issue that needs to be 

addressed during the environmental analysis for revising Allotment Management Plans every 10 years

(1987 Plan, page 67). Permanent salt is not to be placed within one-quarter mile of riparian habitats to 

avoid concentration of livestock (1987 Plan, page 68). Range forage improvement calls for establishing 

woody riparian vegetation and to protect from livestock grazing through management and/or fencing to 

allow for establishment and eliminate overuse (1987 Plan, page 69). 

In addition to the recovery objectives, other objectives for protection and improvement of riparian 

habitats include construction of 10 miles of fence per decade and installation of stream habitat 

improvement projects in the first decade (1987 Plan, page 175). These objectives have been met, and 

riparian habitat improvement projects continue to be implemented. 

Collectively, the guidance in the 1987 Plan for riparian habitats contributes positively to migratory birds 

by emphasizing recovery of habitat, and providing standards, guidelines, and objectives to guide 

improvement. 

Area-specific Direction

Management Area 2 (Verde Wild and Scenic River (VWSR)) emphasizes management of migratory birds 

and recognizes the high importance of riparian habitat to the diversity of migratory birds (1987 Plan, page

115-3). And, the desired conditions for wild and scenic sections include: “Wildlife management within 

the VWSR focuses on a variety of riparian dependent species including migratory birds (1987 Plan, page 

115-3) ...,” which would include Lucy’s and yellow warblers.

Protection of riparian and open water habitat during the breeding season would reduce disturbance to the 

Brewer’s blackbird and wood duck, and could incidentally protect other priority riparian nesting bird 

species. The standard and guideline states:

• The following applies to riparian areas, whether they are large enough to be mapped out or not. 

Wetlands and open water containing emergent vegetation which provide nesting habitat are 

protected from disturbing uses that will harass nesting birds, such as activities that are noisy or 

would damage nests or nesting habitat from May 1 to July 15 (1987 Plan, page 173). 

A number of priority bird species that only occur on the forest in the winter can be found in open habitats 

in the Verde Valley (e.g., chestnut-collared longspur, grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, and lark 

bunting). Guidance for MA 27 (Savannah) has an objective to improve grassland bird habitat (1987 Plan, 

page 206-50). 

In the 1987 Plan, the monitoring plan includes the following for migratory birds: 

“Monitor high-use recreation areas for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

and their habitat, especially neotropical migratory birds. Take appropriate actions to minimize 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

748

impacts, such as seasonal closures, area closures, signs, and interpretation” (1987 Plan, page 242-

30). 

This will ensure that the effects of intense recreational use are minimized when migratory birds are being 

impacted.

Important Bird Areas

There is no specific guidance for the management of important bird areas in the 1987 Plan.

Environmental consequences are described above by habitat. Refer to table 131 for ERU acres within 

important bird areas.

Determination of Effects

The 1987 Plan considers migratory birds and their habitats, and provides direction from improvement of 

habitats. Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill individual 

birds, primarily from tree removal and prescribed fire during the breeding season. The scope and scale of 

these losses will be distributed through the 10+ years of plan implementation and in the long term, 

management activities strive toward habitat improvement, sustaining priority bird habitat into the future. 

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative A is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but is not 

likely to be occurring to such an extent to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 

Alternative B (modified) 

There are no specific goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines for migratory birds in this alternative.

However, there is general wildlife guidance that would apply to migratory birds. 

Forestwide Direction

Desired conditions describe thriving native wildlife populations supported by diverse habitats (FW-WFPDC-1, 3, and 8). Habitats and specific microclimate needs support viable populations (FW-WFP-DC-5). 

The objective to restore/enhance at least 60,000 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat during each 10-year 

period (FW-WFP-O-3) can be applied to migratory bird habitat. 

The standard to apply timing restrictions for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate sensitive 

species (FW-WFP-S-2) and the guideline to apply timing restrictions for Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and pronghorn (FW-WFP-G-8) will also protect migratory birds within those habitats during the 

breeding season.

In general, the guidance in alternative B (modified) provides limited specific direction for migratory 

birds. Habitat management is indirectly addressed through guidance for the different habitat types as 

addressed in the following sections. 

Mixed Conifer (Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire) 

Priority breeding birds that use mixed conifer as primary habitats are band-tailed pigeon, evening 

grosbeak, MacGillivray’s warbler, Mexican whip-poor-will, olive warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, and redfaced warbler. Additionally, the Cassin’s finch is a winter visitor, primarily in ponderosa pine. 

Desired conditions for mixed conifer describe a mosaic of forest conditions, with old growth welldistributed throughout (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-MCFF-DC-1, and FW-TerrERU-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

749

MCIF-DC-1. Snags and downed logs are numerous. Composition, structure and function are resilient to 

disturbances and climate variability. Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire is more open than Mixed Conifer 

with Infrequent Fire. 

Objectives for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire include cutting to treat 2,900 to 15,000 acres (6 to 30 

percent of ERU acres) and using prescribed fire on at least 8,000 acres (16 percent of ERU acres) within 

10 years of plan approval (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-O-1 and 2). Tree removal can adversely affect treenesting priority birds (band-tailed pigeon, evening grosbeak, olive warbler, and olive-sided flycatcher). 

Prescribed fire is generally low severity, yet has potential to directly impact nests of ground-nesting 

priority birds (MacGillivray’s warbler, Mexican whip-poor-will, and red-faced warbler). 

Collectively, desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines provide for the habitat needed by priority bird 

species. Tall trees and snags will be provided through protection and promotion of old growth, and 

openings and edge habitats through implementation of desired conditions and burning objectives. 

Alternative B (modified) provides fairly similar guidance and protections for mixed conifer migratory 

birds as alternative A, but is expected to mechanically harvest more acres.

Ponderosa Pine 

Priority breeding birds that use ponderosa pine as a primary habitat are band-tailed pigeon, common 

nighthawk, flammulated owl, Grace’s warbler, Lewis’s woodpecker, Mexican whip-poor-will, olive 

warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, and red-faced warbler. Additionally, the Cassin’s finch is a winter visitor, 

primarily in ponderosa pine. 

Desired conditions for ponderosa pine describe a landscape that has a variety of age and structural classes, 

that is generally uneven-aged and open, and have well-distributed old growth. Forest arrangement is in 

individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees interspersed with openings that range from 10 to 70 

percent of the landscape (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-4). Size of tree groups averages less than 1 acre and may 

be larger in areas managed for bald eagles and Mexican spotted owl (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-13). Tree 

density ranges from 22 to 89 square foot basal area per acre, but denser tree conditions occur in some 

locations such as north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8). Ponderosa pine snags 

are typically 18 inches or greater at diameter at breast height and average 1 to 2 snags per acre. Downed 

logs average 3 logs per acre within the forested area of the landscape (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5). The 

composition, structure, and function of vegetative conditions are resilient to disturbances and climate 

variability (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2, FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2). The Gambel oak subtype is maintained 

with large oak trees scattered across the landscape, providing cooler, moister microsites for wildlife (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-7). 

Objectives are as follows:

• Use prescribed cutting to treat 50,000 to 260,050 acres of ponderosa pine during each 10-year 

period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-PP-O-1). 

• Use prescribed fire to underburn 150,000 to 200,000 acres of ponderosa pine within the natural 

fire regime during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-PP-O-2). 

Four of the guidelines emphasize the protection of existing old growth; to promote development of future 

old growth; and to protect old trees, including Gambel oak. Another guideline emphasizes snags and 

downed logs along edges of openings and within groups and clumps of trees. Slash is managed to 

minimize impacts from Ips beetles, and to provide habitat for small mammals and turkey nesting habitat.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

750

Collectively, the desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines provide fairly well for the habitats needed 

by ponderosa pine priority migratory birds. Moving toward more open stand conditions using thinning 

and fire will benefit species such as Grace’s warbler, Lewis’s woodpecker, and olive warbler. Provisions 

for maintaining a portion of the landscape in denser habitats will provide the more closed canopy and 

denser conditions used by species such as Mexican whip-poor-will. Maintaining a large snag component 

will benefit the woodpeckers. Desired conditions and guidelines for old growth should provide for habitat 

needed by flammulated owls, but compared to alternative A, management for old growth is less explicit in 

the amount to manage for. The 1987 Plan calls for managing at least 20 percent, or as much of the 

landscape as possible as old growth. Alternative B (modified) does not identify the amount of old growth 

to maintain or develop although desired conditions describe “...having sufficient groups of old growth to 

be representative of the vegetation type prior to 1850.” Also, old growth in alternative A is in stands from 

100 to 300 acres in size, while alternative B (modified) group size averages 0.5 acre in size, with 2 to 40 

trees per group. For most priority bird species, alternatives A and B (modified) provide similar guidance 

and will have similar effects. For the flammulated owl, which used mature forests and old growth, 

alternative A has clearer guidance for the minimum amount of old growth to maintain, and provides for 

larger groups (stand size) in old-growth conditions. However, the amount of mechanical harvest and 

prescribed fire does not differ from alternative A, so the risk of loss of nests and individual birds would be 

similar under alternative B (modified). 

High-elevation Grassland 

Priority breeding birds that use high-elevation grasslands are Brewer’s blackbird, common nighthawk, 

and ferruginous hawk. The desired condition for Great Basin and Montane/Subalpine grassland ERUs 

describes a landscape that provides good habitat for migratory birds. The goal is to have native vegetation 

in a mix of age classes with the height, density, and cover of plants that supports historic fire return 

intervals. Canopy cover of trees and shrubs is less than 10 percent. Soil erosion is minimal, and long-term 

soil productivity is maintained. The desired condition describes connectivity among grasslands. Surface 

drainages and subsurface flow patterns of water are maintained to return water flow into connected water 

bodies and streams. The desired condition includes a description of a mosaic of vegetation, ranging from 

densely vegetation, to bare areas that result from natural activities, such as prairie dog burrowing.

Desired conditions for Pinyon Juniper with Grass also describe a landscape that provided good habitat for 

migratory birds. Canopy cover is 10 to 30 percent, providing a native herbaceous understory that provides 

food and cover for wildlife and can support frequent surface fires. 

One of the guidelines for Great Basin and Montane/Subalpine grassland ERUs would contribute to 

retaining 90 percent of potential ground cover. Guidelines for Pinyon Juniper with Grass describe the 

intent to maintain seral grasslands as grasslands, rather than enhancing successional states and call for 

improvement in soil and watershed conditions and herbaceous vegetation growth. 

Objectives are identified that would help move grassland habitats toward desired conditions as follows: 

• Restore, or improve at least 10,800 to 12,400 acres of Great Basin Grasslands during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2). 

• Restore, or improve at least 7,600 to 11,400 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-3). 

With respect to total ERU acreage, this represents approximately 12 to 13 percent of Great Basin 

Grasslands, and approximately 32 to 48 percent of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

751

While not tied specifically to grassland ERUs, other objectives that call for soil improvements (FW-SoilO-1), naturalizing and decommissioning roads (FW-RdsFac-O-1), implementation of actions to benefit 

federally listed species (FW-WFP-O-1), and restoration of terrestrial wildlife habitat (FW-WFP-O-3) 

could contribute to meeting desired conditions for migratory bird habitat. 

Some of the key activities used to restore high-elevation grasslands include removal of encroaching trees 

and shrubs, and application of prescribed fire. Conifer removal typically involves removal of small 

encroaching trees, so is not very likely to affect the ground-nesting common nighthawk, or remove perch 

trees for wintering or migrating ferruginous hawks. Brewer’s blackbirds usually nest in loose colonies, 

and nest in shrubs and trees and on the ground, so there is some potential to affect this species through 

conifer removal. Prescribed burning is an activity that has the potential for removal of nests and 

disturbance to the ground-nesting common nighthawk, and the ground- and shrub/tree-nesting Brewer’s 

blackbird. Given the relatively high proportion of Montane/Subalpine Grassland likely to be treated over 

the next 10 years, there is some likelihood that individual nests could be removed. However, the overall 

desired conditions to improve and restore grassland habitat should benefit migratory birds in the long 

term.

Pinyon Juniper

Desired conditions for pinyon juniper types describe a landscape with a shifting mosaic of trees, 

interspersed with openings that provide enough connectivity for pronghorn movement (FW-TerrERU-PJDC-1 and 6). Large snags and old trees with dead limbs and tops are scattered across the landscape (FWTerrERU-PJ-DC-2, 7, and 12). Vegetative conditions are resilient to disturbances and climate variability

(FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). Enough ground cover is present to resist erosion (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-15). 

Old growth occurs in pinyon juniper woodlands as individual trees and patches of old trees (FWTerrERU-PJ-DC-11). 

Objectives call for mechanical treatment of 1,000 to 10,000 acres, and 7,500 acres using naturally ignited 

fires within 10 years of plan approval (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2, and 3). This represents 1 to 3 percent of 

pinyon juniper habitats (600,660 acres).

Guidelines call for managing grassland soil types (Mollisols) for grassland desired conditions (FWTerrERU-PJ-G-1) and using slash treatments to improve herbaceous vegetation growth (FW-TerrERU-PJG-2). 

Priority species (black-throated gray warbler, gray flycatcher, gray vireo, pinyon jay, and sage sparrow) 

need mature or old-growth stands that are generally open, with good ground cover and a shrub 

component. Mature pinyon trees provide the seeds necessary for pinyon jays. The Modified Proposed 

Plan only manages for old growth in the woodland component, which represents only 13 percent of the 

pinyon juniper types. Alternative B (modified) does not emphasize maintenance or development of oldgrowth conditions as much as alternative A.

Chaparral 

Desired conditions describe chaparral as shifting on the landscape over time due to succession and 

disturbance, reflecting a mix of early, middle, and late seral stages (FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-1). Young stages 

have more of a grass and forb component and older stages are very dense (FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-2). Fire 

hazard is reduced in the wildland-urban interface (FW-TerrERU-WUI-DC-4). Ground cover protects soils 

from compaction and erosion, and biological soil crusts improve nutrient cycling (FW-TerrERU-IC-DC4). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

752

The guideline for chaparral is to provide a diversity of burn intensities within burn units, and burn units 

are rotated across the landscape (FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-1). There are no objectives or standards.

Although desired conditions provide for habitat diversity, there are no objectives to treat chaparral 

vegetation, so there is not likely to be much management in this habitat during the life of the plan.

Therefore, there will be few impacts, plus or minus, to Virginia’s warbler and black-chinned and sage 

sparrows and their habitat. 

High-elevation (Montane Willow and Mixed Broadleaf) and Low-elevation (Cottonwood Willow) 

Riparian 

Priority bird species that use high-elevation ERUs are Brewer’s blackbird, common black hawk, 

Lincoln’s sparrow, MacGillivray’s warbler, red-faced warbler, and yellow-warbler. Species that use lowelevation riparian are Bell’s vireo, Brewer’s blackbird, common black hawk, elf owl, Lucy’s warbler, 

wood duck, and yellow warbler. 

Desired conditions for all riparian forest types describe conditions that would provide good habitat for 

migratory birds. Goals are to have diverse native vegetation in multiple age classes, uncompacted soils, 

and ecosystems that are functioning within their natural potential (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1, 2, 3, and 4). 

The objective for riparian forest types is to restore at least 200 to 500 acres of non-functioning and 

functioning-at-risk riparian areas within 10 years following plan approval (FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). There 

are approximately 11,018 acres of riparian forest types on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2016b), so this 

represents 2 to 5 percent of riparian forests that are expected to be improved.

Guidelines provide project sideboards to manage for riparian habitats. Water diversions and ground water 

pumping should not lower water tables (FW-Rip-RipType-G-1), which could impact riparian vegetation.

Connectivity among Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and mesquite 

bosques should be maintained and enhanced to benefit Bell’s vireo and other species (FW-RipType-G-2), 

which would include Lucy’s warbler, which also prefer mesquite bosques. Recreation activities can have 

direct effects to riparian breeding birds if nests are knocked out of trees and shrubs, or disturbance is high 

enough to result in nest abandonment. Another guideline calls for management of recreational activities, 

permitted uses, and other management activities to occur at levels that maintain or allow improvement of 

riparian vegetation, which would help protect breeding riparian species (FW-Rip-RipType-G-3). Because

Bells’ vireo and Lucy’s warbler favor riparian habitat combined with mesquite bosques, firewood cutting 

in bosques would be managed to avoid impacts to the understory, tree density, and tree growth will 

protect habitat for these priority species (FW-Rip-RipType-G-4). 

Collectively, the guidance in alternative B (modified) would contribute positively to migratory bird 

riparian habitat as projects are implemented under the Modified Proposed Plan. Benefits are not as strong 

as alternative A, since that alternative calls for all riparian habitats to be in or trending toward satisfactory 

conditions by 2030. Extrapolating out to 2030, implementation of riparian habitat improvement objectives 

in alternative B (modified) would improve a relatively small proportion of riparian forest acres, but the 

remaining will stay in at-risk or non-functioning conditions. 

Desert Communities and Semi-Desert Grasslands

Priority species that use these ERUs for breeding are Bendire’s thrasher and phainopepla. Additionally, 

the chestnut-collared longspur, ferruginous hawk, grasshopper sparrow, and lark bunting use these 

habitats for overwintering. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

753

Desired conditions for Desert Communities call for stabilization of arroyos and gullies (FW-TerrERUDC-DC-1), and for the ERU to be dominated by various age classes of native shrubs, forbs, and grasses 

with little soil compaction or erosion (FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-2 and 4). Uncharacteristic fires are 

infrequent and localized (FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-3). Applicable desired conditions for Semi-desert 

Grasslands include goals to stabilize and recover arroyos and gullies (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-5) and to 

have a mosaic of vegetation densities that includes densely vegetated area that provide cover for groundnesting birds (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-8). Although neither of the priority breeding birds are ground 

nesters, they do sometimes place nests low in shrubs and trees.

The objective for Semi-desert Grassland is to restore/enhance 3,500 acres (4 percent) every 10-year 

period. This would have some benefit to priority bird species, but the amount is very small. There are no 

objectives for Desert Communities. 

This alternative provides stronger habitat improvement goals and protections than alternative A for these 

migratory species. But management activities, particularly prescribed fire applied during the breeding 

season, could still result in removal of nests placed low in shrubs and trees by priority breeding birds. 

Area-Specific Direction

There is no specific guidance for migratory birds in these sections of the plan. Environmental 

consequences are described above by habitat. 

Important Bird Areas

There is no specific guidance for the management of important bird areas in the proposed plan, alternative 

B (modified). Environmental consequences are described above by habitat. Refer to table 131 for ERU 

acres within important bird areas.

Determination of Effects

Guidance in alternative B (modified) provides for migratory bird habitat through desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines for the vegetation types (ERUs). Additional general direction to 

improve habitats and maintain viable populations in forestwide wildlife direction also applies to 

migratory birds. 

Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill individual birds, 

primarily from tree removal and prescribed fire that occurs during the breeding season. The scope and 

scale of these losses would be distributed throughout the 10+ years of plan implementation and in the 

long term, management activities strive toward habitat improvement, sustaining priority bird habitat into 

the future.

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative B (modified) is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, 

but is not likely to be occurring to such an extent as to have a measurable negative effect on migratory 

bird populations. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified), but responds to suggestions from the public for more 

land to be managed in primitive and natural settings with reduced human-related disturbance for the 

benefit of recreation, and botanical and wildlife resources. Additional wilderness areas would be 

recommended on the forest, as well as other special areas, to provide additional protection to botanical 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

754

and wildlife resources. Alternative C also responds to ecological concerns related to presence or absence 

of old-growth composition and structure on the landscape. Specific differences from alternative B are: 

1. Recommends 10 additional wilderness areas (91,757 total wilderness acres compared to 

8,733 acres recommended in alternative B).

2. Places restrictions on snowmobile use in the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas with a 

recreation opportunity spectrum objective of semi-primitive non-motorized. 

3. Places restrictions on recreational shooting in botanical areas; geological areas; existing and 

recommended research natural areas; management areas that emphasize reduced human-related 

disturbance; and in the Walnut Canyon, Sedona Neighborwoods, and long Valley Management 

Areas, and parts of the Flagstaff Neighborwoods Management Area by identifying these areas as 

unsuitable for that activity.

4. Restriction on livestock grazing in research natural areas unless it supports, or would not affect, 

the research purpose of that research natural area.

5. Designation of seven management areas (Blue Ridge Management Area, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s 

Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, Second Chance, and modification of 

Alternative B (modified)’s Anderson Mesa Management Area direction and boundaries to further 

emphasize wildlife habitats) totaling 335,371 acres. 

6. Limitation on motorized dispersed camping in management areas to current levels.

7. Limitation on public motor vehicle access in management areas.

8. Limitation on public road density in the Anderson Mesa Management Areas to an average of 

1 mile or less of road per square mile. 

9. Limitation on large group recreation events and large commercial tours in management areas 

outside of developed sites. 

10. Includes key direction from the 1987 Plan for old growth that would be incorporated into the 

proposed revised plan: 

o Allocation of at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest and woodland 

ERUs in any landscape by 6th code watershed; 

o Distribution of old growth would be in 100- to 300-acre stands;

o The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attributes Used to Determine Old Growth. 

Wilderness Areas (#1)

Alternative C proposes approximately 82,121 additional wilderness acres than alternative B (modified) 

(table 132). The majority of the proposed area falls within the Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland, and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs. The proposed areas represent anywhere between 

less than 0.1 percent to 19 percent of the ERUs (Kipervaser et al. 2016) (table 132).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

755

Table 132. Additional ERU acreage within alternative C proposed wilderness

ERU Alternative B 

(modified) Acres Alternative C Acres Additional 

Alternative C Acres

Alpine Tundra 0 0 0 

Cottonwood Willow 0 233 233

Desert Communities 0 949 949

Great Basin Grassland 2,327 2,327 0 

Interior Chaparral 0 1,720 1,720

Mixed Broadleaf Riparian 21 662 641

Mixed Conifer with Aspen 347 347 0 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 0 283 283

Montane Subalpine Grassland 0 6 6 

Montane Willow Riparian 0 438 438

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 723 50,164 49,441

Pinyon Juniper with Grass 3,618 3,618 0 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland 1,467 13,600 12,133

Ponderosa Pine 97 4,462 4,365

Semi-desert Grassland 132 12,041 11,909

Spruce Fir 0 0 0 

Urban or Agricultural 0 0 0 

Water 0 0 0 

Wetland Cienega 0 3 3 

Total Wilderness Acres: 8,732 90,8531 82,121

1

This acreage does not include 905 acres of Hackberry Wilderness that occurs on the Prescott NF.

Designation as wilderness would provide extra protections for riparian migratory birds, since these 

habitats would be managed for the suite of wilderness characteristics, including native species and 

maintenance of natural processes. Recreation use would be managed to protect wilderness character.

Access would be limited and motorized vehicle traffic would be eliminated, which would result in less 

disturbance for migratory birds than other alternatives. Only 1 percent of the proposed acreage would 

restrict timber production, so direct removal of tree nests is not expected to be much different than 

alternative B (modified). 

Like alternative B (modified), this alternative allows fire to play its natural role as a disturbance agent 

within wilderness areas (SA-Wild-DC-4). But logistical constraints and reduction in available fire 

management tools (e.g., chainsaws, ATVs, etc.) in proposed wilderness areas would result in fewer 

prescribed fires and wildfires managed for resource objectives in this alternative compared to alternative 

B (modified) (Kipervaser et al. 2016). While fewer fires can reduce the number of nests (both tree and 

ground) impacted in the short term, the long-term impacts to habitat could be adverse.

Snowmobile Use and Recreational Shooting (#2 and 3) 

Restrictions on snowmobile use in the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas with a recreation 

opportunity spectrum objective of semi-primitive non-motorized is not expected to have any significant 

benefit to migratory birds. The Cassin’s finch overwinters in ponderosa pine habitats and grasshopper 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

756

sparrows and ferruginous hawks will use open areas forestwide, but the ability to move away from 

temporary disturbance in the winter makes an increase in potential for take unlikely.

Restrictions on recreational shooting are unlikely to have any significant effects, since shooting migratory 

birds is an illegal activity not authorized by the plan.

Livestock Grazing in Research Natural Areas (#4)

Restrictions on livestock grazing in research natural areas is not expected to have an appreciable impact 

on reducing the potential for take of migratory birds. Properly managed livestock grazing should not 

reduce vegetation enough to result in trampling of ground nests or nests places low in trees or shrubs. 

Management Areas (#5-9) 

The emphasis on providing lower-disturbance areas is expected to reduce disturbance to migratory birds 

that occur within these management areas, lessening the potential for take. 

The Anderson Mesa Important Bird Area overlaps the Anderson Mesa, Jack’s Canyon, and Pine Grove 

Management Areas. This alternative would reduce disturbance to wildlife from public motorized access in 

about 6 percent of the important bird area that is within the Jack’s Canyon and Pine Grove MAs. 

Alternative C contains a guideline to reduce the public road density for the Anderson Mesa Management 

Area to an average of 1 mile of road per square mile. Currently, the area has 1.01 miles of public roads 

per square mile; over the life of the proposed revised plan, roads would be decommissioned and closed to 

lower the average to 1.0 mile per square mile. Road closures would result in a minimal reduction of roads 

within Anderson Mesa MA. This guideline would also retain a road density, which minimizes the 

likelihood of increasing road density over time. In locations where road closures occur in the Anderson 

Mesa Important Bird Area, there would be a slight reduction in disturbance to migratory birds and their 

habitat. 

Old Growth (#10) 

Although the language is different in this alternative compared to alternative B (modified), the amount of 

old growth does not change among alternatives, but the spatial arrangement does (Kipervaser et al. 2016). 

This could influence the distribution of migratory birds that use older age classes, but is not expected to 

increase the risk of incidental take.

Determination of Effects

Similar to alternative B (modified), alternative C provides for migratory bird habitat through desired 

conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines for the vegetation types. Additional general direction to 

improve habitats and maintain viable populations in forestwide wildlife direction also applies to 

migratory birds. 

Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill individual birds, 

primarily from tree removal and prescribed fire that occurs during the breeding season. The scope and 

scale of these losses will be distributed throughout the 10+ years of plan implementation and in the longterm, management activities strive toward habitat improvement, sustaining priority bird habitat into the 

future.

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative B (modified) is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

757

but is not likely to be occurring to such an extent to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 

Additional wilderness areas, management areas that emphasize reduce human-related disturbance, and 

retaining the old-growth standards and guidelines result in stronger guidance and protections for 

migratory birds than either alternative A or B (modified). 

Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill individual birds. 

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative C is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but is not 

likely to be occurring to such an extent to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. This alternative has greater positive impacts on migratory birds and their habitats than 

alternative A or B (modified). 

Alternative D

This alternative would be similar to alternative B (modified), but differs in the following ways:

• No new wilderness areas would be recommended;

• Mechanized recreation (e.g., bikes) would be suitable on designated trails in botanical and 

geological areas; and, 

• Expansion and/or increased access for future energy corridor needs would be provided for, and 

scenic integrity objectives along existing energy corridors for energy infrastructure would be 

modified.

Not recommending additional wilderness areas would make this aspect of alternative D the same as 

alternative A. Any reductions in disturbance to migratory birds from additions to wilderness acres (as 

occurs in alternative B (modified) and C) would not occur. 

Allowing bicycles on designated trails in botanical and geological areas would have no appreciable 

effects on migratory birds. 

This alternative reduces the scenic integrity object from moderate or high, to low, for approximately 

32 miles along two utility corridors to accommodate future energy corridor expansion. Since the corridors 

already exist and disturbance to habitat has already occurred, it is unlikely that there would be additional 

take of migratory birds along these utility corridors. 

Determination of Effect

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative D would likely result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but it 

would not likely occur to such an extent that would have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

758

Cumulative Effects for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

Cumulative effects from implementation of the alternatives include both the potential effects of forest 

management on the wildlife resource and the potential effects of land management on adjacent lands of 

other ownership (i.e., private, State, tribal, other Federal agencies, county, etc.) on the wildlife resource. 

In general, cumulative effects include impacts from past activities and potential future activities, such as 

agricultural use, forestry, fire, human development, and recreation. 

Cumulative effects of alternatives A, B (modified), C, and D were evaluated by considering the 

management actions of other entities of a similar planning scope within a relevant spatial and temporal 

context. The analysis area for wildlife includes the Coconino NF and relevant portions of Arizona Game 

and Fish Department’s Region II and Bird Conservation Regions 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) 

and 34 (Sierra Madre Occidental). The analysis area encompasses the three counties immediately adjacent 

to and/or surrounding the Coconino NF: Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai. The analysis area is of a spatial 

extent that accounts for effects on wide-ranging species such as big game and migratory birds that travel 

across numerous land jurisdictions. The area encompasses similar habitat types as identified in the 

proposed action area and reflects similar ecological settings that wildlife species referenced in this FEIS 

could or would use. These effects were evaluated for the life of the forest plan or approximately 10 to 

15 years. 

Several categories of factors can contribute to cumulative effects: plans, such as land and resource 

management plans and wildfire protection plans (for these see the section on fire management); recovery 

plans, including safe harbor agreements, conservation agreements, and similar action plans; recovery 

actions, such as salvage, reintroduction, and translocations; ground-disturbing activities, such as mines, 

urban development, and fire suppression. The cumulative effects of these plans range from negative to the 

point of removing all useable habitats to beneficial for biological resources.

American Indian Tribes

The Hopi Tribe’s Hopi Woodland Management Plan includes objectives to protect wildlife habitat, 

watersheds, and threatened, endangered, and culturally sensitive species. The plan also includes 

objectives that protect and restore riparian areas and to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds. The 

Hualapai Reservation’s Hualapai Fire Management Plan includes goals to sustainably manage timber 

resources, maintain water quality, and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire. The Hualapai 

Reservation also has watershed management plans designed to improve water quality in the Colorado 

River. The Tribe is also actively managing endangered native fish. Together, the management of 

biological resources is enhanced by the cumulative management of the Tribes and the Coconino NF. 

These combined management efforts should positively contribute to species that use forest and woodland, 

riparian, and aquatic habitats and support species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Department of Interior – National Park Service

The Coconino NF is adjacent to or near six national monuments: Walnut Canyon, Sunset Crater Volcano, 

Wupatki, Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, and Tuzigoot. Each of these national monuments has a

general management plan that includes goals to provide healthy habitat for wildlife and sustainable, 

resilient ecosystems over the greater landscape. The management of biological resources is enhanced by 

the cumulative management of these national monuments and the Coconino NF. These combined 

management efforts to provide healthy wildlife habitat and ecosystem should positively contribute to 

species that have habitats in the national monuments and support species viability on the Coconino NF. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

759

National Guard Bureau/Arizona Army National Guard – Camp Navajo

The National Guard Bureau and Arizona Army National Guard are in the process of reviewing Camp 

Navajo’s Draft Integrated Resource Management Plan. The draft plan has many goals related to natural 

resource management, including: restoration of forest resiliency and function by moving toward reestablishment of historic forest, structure, pattern, and composition, restoration of fire to its natural role in 

the ecosystem, protection of vegetation communities, and management of wildlife habitat. Cumulatively, 

these actions are expected to improve habitat, while decreasing the overall long-term viability risk to 

wildlife species that evolved with fire-adapted ecosystems. The combined management efforts to reestablish historic forest, structure, pattern, and composition, restore fire to its natural role in the 

ecosystem, and manage wildlife habitat should positively contribute to species that have habitats in Camp 

Navajo and support species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service

issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed species, including species 

recovery plans. In 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Service approved a revised recovery plan for the Mexican 

spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). The guidance contained in the revised recovery plan 

applies to projects on all Federal lands. This increases consistency across all Federal activities and 

contributes positively to the Mexican spotted owl and their habitat and supports species viability on the 

Coconino NF. 

In addition to the Coconino NF, the Arizona cliffrose occurs on soils derived from white Tertiary 

limestone lakebed deposits on the Tonto and Prescott NFs. Recreation, road construction and 

maintenance, utility corridors, land exchanges, mining, and grazing are the activities most likely to affect 

these populations. The forest plans for the Coconino and Tonto NFs direct that projects will be assessed to 

determine impacts to Arizona cliffrose and that appropriate consultations will be requested, but neither 

plan contains specific prohibitions that would preclude the need for consultation requests for all of these 

uses. The forest plan for the Prescott NF includes direction to locate mineral materials and motorized 

trails outside of areas identified as medium or high potential rare plant habitat within the Verde formation. 

This addresses some of the possible impacts from recreation and mining, but does not address the effects 

of non-motorized trails and uses and so impacts from these recreation types would still be possible under 

their revised plan. The Tonto NF plan does not have direction for Arizona cliffrose or the Verde formation 

that removes the risk of these activities from impacting this species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines that advise 

landowners, land managers, and others when and under what circumstances the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act may apply to their activities (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c). The goal is to 

minimize impacts to bald eagles through implementation of the recommendations in the plan. The forest 

and neighboring landowners and land managers refer to and apply the guidance in the plan at the sitespecific level to minimize impacts and avoid take. The coordinated management increases the 

effectiveness of the Coconino NF efforts to maintain the viability of this species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued interim guidance for golden eagles that identified inventory and 

monitoring protocols, and other information and recommendations to support management and take 

permit issuance. This increases consistency across all Federal activities including highway construction, 

which is reasonably foreseeable given the environmental assessment for upgrading Interstate 17. The 

interim guidance contributes positively to golden eagles and their habitat and supports species viability on 

the Coconino NF. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

760

Forest Service

Similar forest planning efforts have been completed on three neighboring national forests: the Kaibab, 

Prescott, and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. All of these forests have revised their land management plans based 

upon the same regional vegetative desired conditions for ecological response units found in the Southwest 

Region. The Tonto NF is in the process of revising its forest plan; it will also incorporate the regional 

vegetative desired conditions. The cumulative restoration activities from alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D and from the revised plans of these four neighboring national forests could have a pronounced effect on 

modifying stand structure to be less susceptible to stand-replacing fire in these vegetation types, while 

promoting resiliency with regard to climate change. Collectively, the net result of implementation of the 

forest plans for these five forests should be positive and beneficial for wildlife and botanical species by 

ensuring the persistence of these habitats into the future and by providing continuity of suitable habitats. 

This should decrease the overall risk to species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Because other extant populations of Chiricahua leopard frog occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

Tonto NF, management activities and recovery actions on those forests can also have impacts. Under the

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forest plan, road densities have been reduced within some Chiricahua leopard 

frog habitat, and livestock exclusion has been maintained or increased from sites, reducing potential 

negative impacts to the Chiricahua leopard frog (USDA Forest Service 2011f). Under the Tonto NF’s 

forest plan, Chiricahua leopard frog habitat has been improved and restored in Gentry Creek and Crouch 

Creek and frogs have been released into these sites (USDA Forest Service 2011f). Implementation of 

some of the standards and guidelines in the Tonto NF’s forest plan could negatively impact Chiricahua 

leopard frog, and the overall finding for Chiricahua leopard frog and proposed critical habitat is “may 

affect, likely to adversely affect.” However, the Tonto NF is currently in the forest plan revision process. 

The guidance in the revised Tonto NF forest plan will have effects that are cumulative to the Coconino 

NF’s forest plan, but what the precise guidance will be is unknown at this time. Cumulatively, the 

management plans and active restoration efforts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and Tonto NF have 

contributed positively to Chiricahua leopard frog and their habitat and support species viability on the 

Coconino NF. 

The Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto NFs manage 113.2 miles of the Verde River that is designated for 

occupation by the nonessential, experimental population of Colorado pikeminnow. The majority of these 

fish are being stocked in the Verde River at Beasley Flat and Childs river access points. These 

reintroductions are considered experimental, nonessential populations, and low survival with no 

successful reproduction has been documented as a result of these releases (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002c). Cumulatively, the management plans and active restoration efforts on the Prescott NF and 

Tonto NF have contributed positively to Colorado pikeminnow and their habitat and support species 

viability on the Coconino NF. 

Several of the bald eagle breeding areas on the Verde River are shared with the Prescott NF. The revised 

Prescott NF’s forest plan includes direction for projects to incorporate design features and mitigation 

measures into projects to ensure compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This 

direction contributes positively to bald eagles and their habitat and supports the viability of this species on 

the Coconino NF. 

The Four-Forest Restoration Initiative is a large-scale planning effort involving three of the neighboring 

forests. It would focus on improving resiliency in fire-adapted ecosystems. If implemented, the FourForest Restoration Initiative could treat up to 50,000 acres annually across the Coconino, Kaibab, 

Apache-Sitgreaves, and Tonto NFs. The cumulative effect of this process could have widespread 

beneficial outcomes in restoration across the forest including decreased susceptibility to large 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

761

disturbances (e.g., uncharacteristic wildfire and insect outbreaks) and increased water yields from winter 

snowfall through the creation of interspaces. The scale of this project is such that these changes could 

have a meaningful impact on wildlife habitat by improving adaptability of ponderosa pine types to a 

changing climate and providing for it well into the future. These changes in wildlife habitat condition 

would decrease the overall risk to species viability on the Coconino NF. 

The Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) is being 

developed concurrently with this forest plan revision effort. The CRMP will provide detailed direction, 

implementation actions, and monitoring to protect or enhance outstandingly remarkable values of the wild 

and scenic river. The proposed action is designed to include the most flexibility to increase capacity and 

recreation infrastructure—maximizing recreation opportunities in the future—while providing protection 

for sensitive river and Tribal values at the same time through both a management plan and site-specific 

actions. Project actions would address recreation capacity, corridor access, recreation facilities, services, 

and public health and safety. Even if an alternative to the proposed action is selected, it is likely to include 

managing recreation to prevent resource damage in the river corridor. Management actions under the 

CRMP would contribute positively to species associated with Fossil Creek (including Fossil Creek 

bedstraw, Metcalfe’s tick trefoil, Cochise sedge, Fossil springsnail, western yellow-billed cuckoo, 

northern Mexican garter snake, narrow-headed gartersnake, bats, common black hawk, lowland leopard 

frog, Arizona toad) and their habitat and support species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Arizona Department of Agriculture and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

The State of Arizona has promulgated regulations for agriculture and environmental quality. Title 3 of the 

Arizona Revised Statutes contains the provisions related to agricultural topics such as dangerous plant 

pests and diseases. Title 49 outlines specifics such as water quality standards and total maximum daily 

loads. These regulations create management outcome expectations that are similar to those envisioned on 

the forest. By ensuring safe and effective plant pest and disease control and clean water on other lands 

used by species that have habitat on the Coconino NF, these state regulations should decrease the overall 

risk to species viability on the forest. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources

The Arizona Department of Water Resources administers and enforces the State’s groundwater code and 

surface water rights laws. (Arizona Department of Water Resources 2016). The mission of the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources is to secure long-term dependable water supplies for Arizona. Title 45 of 

the Arizona Revised Statutes contains the provisions related to water and groundwater resources. 

Groundwater pumping and diversion of surface water can impact the condition of riparian areas (streams, 

wetlands, springs, and riparian forest types). For example, groundwater pumping off the forest can lower 

water tables and affect the connectivity of habitats for fisheries and aquatic biota. Continued or increased 

pumping may negatively affect the base flow of streams that are directly connected to major aquifers and 

associated streams, especially the Verde River, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek and Oak Creek, because 

domestic use is high adjacent to these streams. Groundwater pumping within the Little Colorado River 

Plateau may negatively affect adjacent forest wells used for stock watering and domestic use. 

Groundwater pumping adjacent to springs and seeps may reduce flow, but little quantitative information 

is available to accurately project the extent (USDA Forest Service 2016j). The downward trend in 

groundwater levels is projected to continue with increasing use adjacent to the Verde Valley cities and 

Flagstaff; however, trends in the remainder of the area are unknown. The Arizona Department of Water 

Resources’ regulation of the use of water, especially in the face of growing populations in the area should 

decrease the overall risk to species viability on the forest. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

762

Arizona Game and Fish Department

The Arizona Game and Fish Department manages wildlife populations in the State. The Arizona Game 

and Fish Department pursues its management under the guidance of a variety of plans. The “Wildlife 

20/20 Strategic Plan” provides management direction for the department’s program of work. The plan is 

built around two strategic themes: wildlife conservation and recreation (AZGFD 2016). “The Arizona 

State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022” (previously titled “Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy”), was approved in 2012, and provides the vision for managing Arizona’s fish, 

wildlife, and wildlife habitats. The plan contains several key elements that may provide information for, 

or have an impact on, Coconino NF management: 

• distribution and abundance of wildlife;

• locations and condition of key habitats and community types; 

• problems that may adversely affect species in their habitats; and

• proposed conservation actions for habitats and species and implementation priorities. 

The “Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages, San Francisco Peaks to 

Mogollon Rim Linkage Design” identifies three linkage strands that could provide desirable wildlife 

connectivity between blocks of wildlands around the San Francisco Peaks and the Mogollon Rim 

(AZGFD 2013). The San Francisco Peaks to Mogollon Rim movement area has been identified as a 

priority by workshop attendees and is supported by County planners with knowledge of future growth 

patterns and potential conservation opportunities. The Garland Prairie Strand includes ponderosa pine 

forest, pinyon juniper woodland, high-elevation grassland, and ephemeral wetland and provides live-in 

and pass-through habitat for species utilizing these habitat types. The Volunteer Mountain Strand follows 

the wooded highlands on the western edge of the U.S. Army’s Camp Navajo installation and is dominated 

by ponderosa pine forest, with small areas of pinyon juniper and grassland at its southern and western 

edges. The Woody Ridge Strand is predominantly ponderosa pine forest and encompasses most of northsouth trending Woody Ridge east of Camp Navajo. Understanding wildlife connectivity patterns across 

the region will help guide development in the future. This information contributes positively to wildlife 

and their habitat and supports the viability of wildlife on the Coconino NF. 

AZGFD has developed a conservation assessment and strategy for bald eagles in Arizona (Driscoll et al. 

2006). The Southwestern Region signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), along with other 

partners, agreeing to conserve the bald eagle and implement the conservation assessment and strategy. 

This results in additional assurance that bald eagles will be protected at the project level and that the 

potential for take is minimized in a consistent way across all national forests in the Southwest. This 

protection contributes positively to bald eagles and their habitat and supports the viability of wildlife on 

the Coconino NF.

Private land development in grasslands on private land adjacent to the forest have reduced the overall 

abundance of habitat for Gunnison’s prairie dog outside the forest boundary. NFS lands only comprise 

about 6 percent of predicted range, and so can only support a small population compared to non-NFS 

lands (Underwood 2007). AZGFD manages Gunnison’s prairie dog as a “nongame mammal,” which may 

be taken during an open hunting season. AZGFD has instituted seasonal shooting closures from April 1 to 

June 15 to protect pregnant and lactating prairie dogs and their young (Underwood 2007). The 

developments on private land and authorized hunting are negatively contributing to Gunnison’s prairie 

dog and their habitat and do not support species viability on the Coconino NF. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIb

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

763

Arizona State Parks

Deadhorse State Park includes portions of the Desert Communities ERU, which is Arizona cliffrose 

habitat, and portions of the Verde Formation soil type, with is habitat for Bigelow’s onion, Heath-leaf 

wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort, Verde Valley sage, and Ripley’s Wild Buckwheat. Dead Horse State 

Park limits disturbance to this soil type from recreation by limiting hiking and bicycling to trails to 

support the viability of this plant. The private land development in the Verde Valley has reduced the 

overall abundance of these habitats for these species. The limited disturbance to these habitats under 

Deadhorse State Park’s management contributes positively to these species and their habitat and supports 

species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Local Government

The landscape in the analysis areas has become more fragmented and altered as a result of human 

activities that include urban development, roads, infrastructure development, ranching, and fire 

suppression. Fragmentation and habitat alteration has been especially problematic in the 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU and the cinder soils found in the Doney Park, Timberline, and similar 

neighborhoods in Coconino County and in the Semi-desert Grassland and Desert Communities ERUs in 

Yavapai County. Many local governments have addressed this growing fragmentation in their planning 

efforts. The “Coconino County Comprehensive Plan (2015)” serves as a long-range guide for the future, 

with goals that provide general direction, and policies that specify the location, form, purpose, and 

acceptable impacts of development. The environmental pillar of this plan includes ecosystem services, air 

quality, water quantity and quality, open space, and climate change. The “Flagstaff Regional Plan (2014)” 

adopted by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors and Flagstaff City Council includes an element 

that addresses open space. The “Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan (2012)” covers eight topic areas: 

land use, transportation, water and open space, energy, environment, cost of development, and growth 

areas. The “Sedona Community Plan (Imagine Sedona 2020 and Beyond)” guides the city in, among 

other things, making decisions about new development and re-zonings (City of Sedona 2014). The “Verde 

Valley Regional Land Use Plan” includes open space preservation as a key component for a balanced 

land-use pattern (Yavapai County 2006). By ensuring that development decision consider the value of 

open space, these local plans should decrease habitat fragmentation and correspondingly result in 

lowering the overall risk to species viability on the forest. 

There are four community wildfire protection plans in the analysis area. These plans cover the Blue Ridge 

and Mogollon Rim Communities, Flagstaff and Surrounding Communities, Greater Williams Area 

Community, and Tusayan Community. These community wildfire protection plans generate a broad 

operating framework for landowners and resource managers within the areas, and identify community 

protection priorities. These plans use a combination of fuel management, FireWise standards, and 

appropriate wildfire suppression response to reduce threats to life and property, protect values-at-risk, and 

create a safe context for the use of fire in subsequent forest ecosystem restoration efforts. These plans 

outline actions needed to prepare and equip the community to live and thrive within our fire-adapted 

ponderosa pine forests. These plans help reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire in areas adjacent or near 

the Coconino NF. Reducing the overall risk of uncharacteristic fire will contribute positively to a wide 

variety of species and their habitat and support species viability on the Coconino NF. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Preparers and Contributors

Coconino National Forest

765

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact 

statement: 

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Name Title Education and Experience

Judy Adams Lands 

Team Leader

B.S. Forestry, Michigan Technological University

27 years experience with the Forest Service

Noah Bard Data Information 

Specialist

M.S. Applied Geospatial Science, Northern Arizona 

University; B.S. Parks and Recreation: Wildland 

Management, Northern Arizona University

3 years experience with the Forest Service

Carl Beyerhelm Resource 

Information 

Specialist

M.S. Forestry, University of Minnesota; B.S. Fisheries and 

Wildlife Biology, Iowa State University

22 years experience with the Forest Service

Julia Camp Zone Wildlife 

Biologist

M.S. Forest Resources, Clemson University; B.S. 

Environmental Biology and Management, University of 

California-Davis

6 years experience with the Forest Service and 5 years 

experience in environmental consulting

Michael Childs Fisheries Biologist M.S. Zoology, Oklahoma State University; B.S. Wildlife and 

Fisheries Management, Arizona State University

20 years experience with the Forest Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Arizona Game and Fish Department

Debra Crisp Forest Botanist M.S. in Forestry, B.S. in Biology, Northern Arizona 

University

32 years of experience with the Forest Service

Sara Dechter Social Science 

Analyst

M.S. Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University; 

B.A. Sociology, University of Notre Dame

9 years experience with the Forest Service and 4 years 

experience with local government

Heather Green Planning 

Stewardship Lead

M.S. Biology and B.S .Biology, minor Anthropology, 

Northern Arizona University

30 years experience with the Forest Service

Troy Grooms Range Management 

Specialist

B.S. Rangeland Ecology, Colorado State University

4 years experience with the Forest Service, 8 years 

experience with the Bureau of Land Management, and 1 

year experience with Colorado State Parks

Wesley Hall Forest Fire 

Management 

Specialist

M.F. Master of Forestry, Northern Arizona University

6 years experience with the Forest Service

Polly Haessig Physical Scientist M.S. Geology, Oregon State University and B.A. 

Anthropology, Occidental College

25 years experience with the Forest Service and Army 

Corps of Engineers
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

766

Name Title Education and Experience

Gary Hase Range Management 

Specialist

B.S. Rangeland Management, Arizona State University

11 years experience with the Forest Service and 18 years 

experience with Arizona State Lands Department

Lance Haubrick Civil Engineer M.S. Civil Engineering; B.S. Environmental Engineering, 

Oregon State University

5 years experience with the Forest Service

Nicole Hill Landscape Architect B.S. Landscape Design and B.S. Environmental 

Management, South Dakota State University

10 years experience with the Forest Service

Tammy Hoem 

Neher

Fisheries Biologist

Ray Holt Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering, Northern Arizona University

12 years experience with the Forest Service

Delilah Jarwoski Social Scientist M.S. Environment and Development, London School of 

Economics

3 year experience with the Forest Service and 2 years 

experience with the Bureau of Land Management

Vernon Keller Program Planning 

Specialist

J.D. Law, University of Kansas; B.A. History, Mesa State 

College

12 years experience with the Forest Service; 12 years 

experience in the private sector

Yewah Lau Forest Planner MEM Resource Economics and Policy, Duke University;

B.S. Biology, Carleton College

11 years experience with the Forest Service

Michael Manthei Silviculturist B.S. Forest Management, Northern Arizona University

35 years experience with the Forest Service

Shawn Martin Silviculturist/Forester B.S. Forest Management, Humboldt State University

14 years experience with Forest Service and 7 years 

experience with the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Ed Monin Civil Engineer M.S. Civil Engineering; B.S. Environmental Engineering; 

B.S. Geology, P.E., Northern Arizona University

3 years experience with the Forest Service

Vic Morfin Forest Fuels 

Specialist

M.S. Forest Science, Northern Arizona University

25 years experience with the Forest Service

Matthew O’Neill Fisheries Biologist

Cecelia Overby Wildlife/Fish 

Program Manager

M.S. Forestry, Northern Arizona University; B.S. Biology, 

College of William and Mary

29 years experience with the Forest Service

Yvette Paroz Fisheries Biologist

Barbara Phillips Zone Botanist Ph. D. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of 

Arizona; M.S. Botany, University of Arizona; B.S. Botany, 

Cornell University

23 years experiences with the Forest Service and 14 years 

experience with the Museum of Northern Arizona
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Preparers and Contributors

Coconino National Forest

767

Name Title Education and Experience

Peter Pilles Forest Archaeologist B.A. Anthropology, Arizona State University

37 years experience with the Forest Service and 10 years 

experience varying with the Museum of Northern Arizona, 

Arizona State Museum, and Pueblo Grande Museum

Adriane Ragan Writer/Editor M.A. English, Northern Arizona University; B.A. History, 

University of Missouri-Kansas City

9 years experience with the Forest Service

Valerie Stein 

Foster

Wildlife Biologist M.S. Botany, University of Hawai’I at Manoa; B.A. Biology, 

State University of New York at Oswego

6 years with the Forest Service; 3 years with Hawaii State 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife; 4 years with the National 

Park Service; 1 year with Zoological Society of San Diego; 

1 year with U.S. Geological Survey; and 3 years working 

with various consulting firms and non-governmental 

organizations.

Rory Steinke Watershed Program 

Manager

B.S. Soil Science, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

34 years experience with the Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 

and Peace Corps. Certified Professional Soil Scientist since 

1996.

Emily Williams Planning Specialist M.A. International Administration, University of Denver; B.A. 

International Studies and Englist Literature, Texas A&M 

University

3 years experience with the Forest Service and 2 years 

experience with the Department of State

Tina Williams Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering, Northern Arizona University

13 years experience with the Forest Service

Sean Untalan Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering, Northern Arizona University

4 years experience with the Forest Service

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

Numerous Federal, State, county, and local agencies and organizations have been consulted in the 

development of the proposed revised plan and this environmental impact statement. Complete 

mailing lists for the scoping periods are available in the planning record. Some of the agencies 

consulted include the following.

Federal

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Kaibab National Forest 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Prescott National Forest

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Southwestern Regional Office 

Tonto National Forest 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

768

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

U.S. Senators 

U.S. Representatives

State

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Arizona Department of Mines and Minerals 

Arizona Department of State Lands 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Arizona Department of Water Resources

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona Geological Survey 

Arizona State Forestry Division

Arizona State Representatives

Arizona State Parks

Arizona State University

Arizona State Senators

Northern Arizona Council of Governments 

Northern Arizona University 

Office of the Governor

University of Arizona 

Coconino County Cooperative Extension 

Yavapai County Cooperative Extension 

County

Coconino County 

Gila County

Yavapai County 

Local Municipalities

City of Flagstaff

City of Sedona 

City of Winslow

City of Phoenix 

Town of Camp Verde 

Town of Clarkdale 

Town of Cottonwood 

Town of Payson 

Village of Oak Creek

Unincorporated Communities

Beaver Creek Communities (Lake 

Montezuma, McGuireville, and Rimrock) 

Camp Navajo 

Cornville 

Happy Jack/Long Valley/Clint’s Well

Munds Park 

Page Springs

Pine

Strawberry

Winona

Tribes

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Navajo Nation

Pueblo of Zuni

San Carlos Apache Tribe

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

The Havasupai Tribe

The Hopi Tribe

The Hualapai Tribe

The Pueblo of Acoma 

The Yavapai-Apache Nation

The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Preparers and Contributors

Coconino National Forest

769

Others 

Numerous groups and individuals participated in the process through written comments and/or 

attending public meetings. Groups that participated include:

360 Adventures 

A-1 Ranch 

Absolute Bikes

Access Fund

All-American Road Committee

Arizona Public Service 

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association

Arizona Elk Society

Arizona Forest Plan Revision Coalition

Arizona Greenworks 

Arizona Riparian Council 

Arizona Safari Jeep Tours 

Arizona Snowbowl 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Back Country Horsemen of Arizona 

Bar T Bar, Inc.

Barlow Jeep Rentals

Big Park Council 

Blue Ribbon Coalition

Bristlecone Pines Property Owners 

Association

Camp Colton 

Center for Biological Diversity

CenterFocus Reservations

Coconino County Trail Riders 

Coconino Horsemen’s Alliance 

Coconino Rural Environment Corps 

Cocopai Trails

Crooked H Ranch 

Democrats of the Red Rocks

Diablo Trust

Earth Wisdom Tours 

East Flagstaff Community Library

Ecological Restoration Institute

Environmental Planning Group 

Equinature USA 

ERA Young Reality 

Flagstaff Activist Network

Flagstaff Biking Organization

Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau

Flying M Ranch

Forest Guardians 

Free Soul Mind/Body Education 

Friends of the forest

Friends of the Well

Friends of Verde River Greenway

Friends of Walnut Canyon

Gon' Fishen 

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Great Western Trail 

Greater Flagstaff Economic Council 

Habitat Harmony 

Hart Livestock

High Desert Investment Co.

Highlands Fire Department 

Hitchin' Post Stables, Inc.

Horse Trails Coalition

Independent Resources 

James Guide Service

KAZM Radio

Keep Sedona Beautiful 

Kendrick Mountain Allotment 

Kentucky Wolf Information Center 

Little Horse Ranch, LLLP O.X. Ranch 

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. 

Manterola Sheep Company

M-Diamond Ranch 

Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental 

Research

Mormon Lake Lodge 

Morrison Brothers Windmill Ranch, LLC 

Museum of Northern Arizona 

Northern Arizona ATV 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

770

Northern Arizona Building Association 

Northern Light Balloon Expeditions 

Orme Ranch

Phoenix Zoo 

Pink Jeep Tours

Recreation resident special use permittees

Red Rock Balloons 

Red Rock Western Jeep Tours

Red Rock-Dry Creek Community Plan 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Salt River Project

Sedona Fire District

Sedona Metaphysical Spiritual Association

Sedona Metaphysical Spiritual Association

Sedona Mountain Bike Adventures 

Sedona Private Guides

Sedona Publishing Company 

Sedona Sports 

Sedona Verde Valley Association of 

REALTORS

Sedona Wedding Professionals Association

Sedona Westerners

Sedona.Biz 

Segway of Sedona 

Shadow Estates Homeowners Association

Shadow Estates Homeowners Board 

Sheep Limited

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter 

Sky Island Alliance

Southwest Area Transmission Planning 

GroupSouthwest Forest Products, Inc. 

Southwestern Environmental Consultants, 

Inc.

Sultana Cycles

The i/mx Companies HMA, Inc. 

The Institute of Ecotourism

The Nature Conservancy

The Trust for Public LandTonto Rim Sports 

Club

Touch of Southwest Tours

Trek AmericaTucson Electric Power

V Bar V Ranch

Verde Valley 4 Wheelers

Verde Valley Cyclists

Verde Valley Horsemen's Council

Verde Valley Land Preservation Institute 

Vertical Relief Climbing Center 

W.C. Long Outfitters 

Weddings in Sedona 

Western Area Power Administration 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Western Watershed Coalition

William Grant Still Music 

Windmill Ranch 

Yavapai Cattle Growers Association
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

Coconino National Forest

771

Distribution of the Environmental Impact 

Statement

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document 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.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

773

Glossary

Accessibility – Term referring to the degree to which recreation opportunities, facilities, or programs 

meet current legal, social, and design requirements for use by persons of varying physical and mental 

abilities.

Age class – Refers to trees that originated within a relatively distinct range of years. Typically the 

range of years is considered to fall within 20 percent of the average natural maturity (e.g., if 100 

years is required to reach maturity, then there would be five 20-year age classes).

Air quality related values – Values associated with wilderness character, such as visibility and 

pollutant concentrations consistent with natural conditions. 

Airshed – Subset of air basin, the term denotes a geographical area that shares the same air because 

of topography, meteorology, and climate. (Source: http://www.ecologydictionary.org/EPA-Terms-ofEnvironment-Dictionary/Airshed, Ecology Dictionary) 

Animal unit months (AUMs) – One AUM is the amount of forage required by an animal unit (AU) 

for 1 month, or the tenure of one AU for a 1-month period. An animal unit is defined as a mature 

(800- to 1,000-pound) cow with or without a calf, based on an average consumption rate of 26 

pounds of forage dry matter per day. (Ruyle and Ogden 1993) 

Arterials – Roadways that form a network linking cities and larger towns (and other traffic 

generators, such as major resort areas, which are capable of attracting travel over similarly long 

distances) and provide interstate and intercounty travel corridors.

Authorized use – The use specified on the annual bill(s) for collection and verified by permittee’s 

payment of fees.

Basal area – The cross-sectional area at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) of trees measured 

in square feet. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The crosssectional area is determined by calculating the tree’s radius from its diameter (diameter/2 = radius) 

and using the formula for the area of a circle (π x radius2 = cross-sectional area). Basal area per acre 

is the summation of the cross-sectional area of all trees in an acre or in a smaller plot used to 

estimate basal area per acre. Diameter at root collar (defined below) is used to calculate the crosssectional area of multi-stemmed trees such as juniper and oak.

Best management practices – Methods, measures, or practices an agency selects to meet its 

nonpoint source control needs. Best management practices include, but are not limited to, structural 

and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. Best management practices 

can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2(m)). 

Biological soil crusts – Crusts of soil particles formed by living organisms (e.g., algae, mosses, 

lichens) in arid areas. The crusts hold soil in place, help retain moisture, and improve soil nutrients 

by fixing atmospheric nitrogen. 

Candidate species – Plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, may become endangered or threatened (FSM 2670 09/23/2005). These are documented in 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s program advice to its regional directors for preparation of listing 

packages or documented in a current Federal Register Notice of Review (categories 1 and 2) for 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

774

threatened or endangered listing. The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes three categories of 

candidate species for listing as endangered or threatened:

• Category 1. Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has substantial information on 

hand to support the biological appropriateness of proposing to list the species as 

endangered or threatened. Currently, data are being gathered concerning essential habitat 

needs and for some taxa, the precise boundaries for critical habitat designations. 

Development and publication of proposed listing of these species is anticipated.

• Category 2. Taxa for which information now in possession of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service indicates that proposing to list the species as endangered or threatened is possibly 

appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are 

not currently available to support proposed listing. 

• Category 3. Taxa that are no longer being considered for listing as endangered or 

threatened and are not regarded as candidate species. There are three subcategories:

(1) Taxa for which the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service has 

persuasive evidence of extinction.

(2) Taxa that while represented in published revisions and monographs do not meet the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended definition of species on the basis of 

current taxonomic understanding. 

(3) Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than was previously 

believed and/or those that are not subject or any identifiable threat.

Carbon monoxide (CO) – Colorless, odorless gas that forms when carbon in fuel does not burn 

completely. Carbon monoxide is a component of exhaust from motor vehicles and engines. Carbon 

monoxide emissions increase when conditions are poor for combustion; thus, the highest carbon 

monoxide levels tend to occur when the weather is very cold or at high elevations where there is less 

oxygen in the air to burn the fuel. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions) 

Class I area – Geographic area designated by the Clean Air Act where only a small amount or 

increment of air quality deterioration is permissible. (Source: 

http://www.forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php, NOAA National Weather Service Glossary)

Clump – A tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a common 

rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is relatively isolated 

from other clumps or trees within a group of trees, but a standalone clump of trees can function as a 

tree group. 

Critical habitat – Areas designated as critical by the Secretary of the Departments of the Interior or 

Commerce for the survival and recovery of listed species (50 CFR Parts 17 and 226). Because use of 

the term has legal implications, the Forest Service limits its use to only those habitats officially 

determined as critical by the Secretary.

Coarse woody debris – Woody material on the ground greater than 3 inches in diameter, including 

logs. 

Collector road – Road providing both land access service and traffic circulation within residential 

neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas. These streets channel traffic volumes into the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

775

arterial system. The collector system may include the street grid, which forms a logical entity for 

traffic circulation.

Declining – Refers to the senescent (aging) period in the lifespan of plants that includes the presence 

of dead and/or dying limbs, snag tops, and other characteristics that indicate the later life stages of 

vegetation.

Desired landscape character – Described in the Scenery Management System Handbook as “The 

most complete, attractive and sustainable expression of the valued landscape character which is 

compatible with that landscape’s fully integrated set of desired conditions” (page 5-5 expanded). 

Desired landscape character represents the most “ideal” and attractive scenic identity that is possible, 

given the limitations of the ecosystem and achievement of other resource objectives as defined in the 

desired conditions.

Developed site – A discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services used to 

provide recreation opportunities to the public and evidencing a significant investment in facilities 

and management under the direction of an administrative unit in the National Forest System.

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) – Diameter of a tree typically measured at 4.5 feet above ground 

level.

Diameter at root collar (d.r.c) – Diameter of a tree typically measured at the root collar or at the 

natural ground line, whichever is higher, outside the bark. For a multistemmed tree, diameter at root 

collar is calculated from the diameter measurements of all qualifying stems (1.5 inches diameter or 

greater and at least 1 foot in length).

Ecological Response Units (ERUs) – ERUs represent an ecosystem stratification based on 

vegetation characteristics that would occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological 

processes prevail (TNC 2006), and combine potential vegetation and historic fire regimes to form 

ecosystem classes useful for landscape assessment. Technical ERU descriptions were developed to 

assist in the analysis of ecological sustainability for plan revision (Wahlberg et al. 2014). The 

vegetation types used in describing desired conditions were based on these technical ERU 

descriptions, but were written in more general terms for ease of understanding. 

Ecosystems – Spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous units of the Earth that include all 

interacting organisms and elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries. An ecosystem 

is commonly described in terms of its: 

• Composition − biological elements within the different levels of biological organizations, 

from genes and species to communities and ecosystems.

• Structure − organization and physical arrangement of biological elements such as snags and 

down woody debris, vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream habitat 

complexity, landscape pattern, and connectivity. 

• Function − ecological processes, such as energy flow; nutrient cycling and retention; soil 

development and retention; predation and herbivory; and natural disturbances such as wind, 

fire, and floods that sustain composition and structure. 

Ecotone – Transition zone between two distinct ecological communities.

Emissions – Releases of pollutants into the air from a source, such as a motor vehicle or a factory. 

(Source: http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile 

Source Emissions)
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

776

Emission reduction standards – Rules and regulations that set limits on how much pollution can be 

emitted from a given source. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers have responded to many mobile 

source emission standards by redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce pollution. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions) 

Environmental justice – According to USDA DR5600-002 (USDA 1997), environmental justice 

and minority, minority population, low-income, and human health and environmental effects, are 

defined as follows:

• Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, 

all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, 

are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities 

affecting human health or the environment. 

• Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American 

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or 

Hispanic.

• Minority population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA 

programs or activities.

• Low-income population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who 

live in geographic proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and 

other geographically dispersed or transient persons who would be similarly affected by 

USDA programs or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data 

collected, maintained and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, 

Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

• Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this departmental regulation 

includes interrelated social and economic effects. 

Even-aged stands – Tree stands composed of one distinct age class of trees.

Experimental population – A population (including its offspring) of a listed species designated by 

rule published in the Federal Register that is wholly separate geographically from other populations 

of the same species. An experimental population may be subject to less stringent prohibitions than 

are applied to the remainder of the species to which it belongs.

Fire exclusion – Fire exclusion interrupts natural fire return intervals. It ultimately affects the 

density and structure of live and dead vegetation, overstory and understory abundance, diversity and 

resiliency, and soil productivity in many of the PNVTs. As density of live and dead vegetation 

increases, vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire increases.

Fire return interval – The number of years between two successive fires in a designated area (i.e., 

the interval between two successive fires); the size of the area must be clearly specified (McPherson 

and others 1990).

Fire regime – Patterns of fire that occur over a long period of time across an appropriately scaled 

area and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. An ecosystem’s natural fire 

regime is the one that existed prior to human-facilitated interruption of fire frequency, extent, or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

777

severity. The five fire regimes are classified based on frequency (i.e., average number of years 

between fires) and severity (i.e., amount of replacement on the dominant overstory vegetation) of the 

fire. The five regimes are: 

• Fire regime I. 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory vegetation 

replaced);

• Fire regime II. 0- to 35-year frequency and high severity (greater than 75percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 

• Fire regime III. 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity;

• Fire regime IV. 35- to 100+-year frequency and high severity;

• Fire regime V. 200+-year frequency and high severity

Forest analysis species – Plant, animal, and aquatic species considered for analysis during the forest 

plan revision process.

Forest highway – A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and 

open to public travel (23 USC 101). The Forest Highway Program falls under 23 USC 202, 203, and 

204. 

Forest transportation atlas – A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an 

administrative unit (36 CFR 212.1). 

Fugitive dust – Particles lifted into the ambient air caused by human-made and natural activities 

such as the movement of soil, vehicles, equipment, blasting, and wind. This excludes particulate 

matter emitted directly from the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, 

from portable brazing, soldering, or welding equipment, and from pile drivers. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/phoenixpm/define.html, EPA Federal Implementation Plan 

Definitions)

General forest area – General forest areas are all lands available for recreational use and outside of 

wilderness, developed sites, trails, and administrative sites. The general forest areas are composed of 

concentrated use areas. Concentrated use areas can include front- and/or back-country campsites, 

parking areas, pullouts and landings, river and road corridors, lake surfaces, and day-use areas such 

as off-highway vehicle areas, climbing areas, target shooting areas, etc. Amenities or constructed 

features inside general forest areas are primarily for resource protection.

Groups – A cluster of two or more trees with interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns at maturity 

surrounded by an opening. Size of tree groups is typically variable depending on forest type and site 

conditions and can range from fractions of an acre (a two-tree group) (i.e., ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer) to many acres (i.e., wet mixed conifer, spruce-fir). Trees within groups are typically 

nonuniformly spaced, some of which may be tightly clumped. 

Haze – Atmospheric particulate matter and gases that diminish visibility. Visibility is reduced when 

light encounters tiny pollution particles, such as soot and dust, and some gases (such as nitrogen 

dioxide) in the air. Some light is absorbed by the particles and gases and other light is scattered away 

before it reaches your eye. More pollutants mean more absorption and scattering of light, resulting in 

more haze. Some haze-causing pollutants are directly emitted to the atmosphere from vehicle 

emissions; others are formed indirectly when pollutants from mobile sources react with other 

elements and materials in the atmosphere (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

778

Head months (HMs) – is one month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal. For grazing 

fee purposes, it is a month’s use and occupancy of range by one weaned or adult cow with or without 

calf, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or goats. 

Heritage sites or assets – Remnants of past cultures that remind us of the centuries-old relationship 

between people and the land (from National Heritage Strategy); property, plant, or equipment that 

are unique for one or more of the following reasons: (1) historical or natural significance; (2) 

cultural, educational or artistic/aesthetic significance; or (3) significant architectural characteristics.

INFRA – An integrated Forest Service infrastructure database for collection, storage, and use of 

feature, land unit, facility, utility, work item, cost, accessibility, and real property data. For recreation 

management, INFRA provides the opportunity to enter information to derive operations and 

maintenance costs, recreation funding shortfalls, recreation use data, accessibility information, and 

constructed feature inventory conditions. INFRA brings together tabular and spatial technology. 

INFRA provides information critical to using the Meaningful Measures for Quality Recreation 

Management System.

Invasive exotic plants – Plants that are non-native, highly competitive, and have few, if any, threats. 

Once established, they can replace native species and disrupt soil stability, fire return intervals, and 

hydrologic regimes. 

Leasable minerals – Oil, gas, coal, phosphate, potassium, sodium, sulphur, gilsonite, oil shale, 

geothermal resources, and hardrock minerals. Geothermal energy is natural heat from within the 

Earth captured for producing electric power, space heating, or industrial steam. A geothermal area is 

any that may contain underground reservoirs of hot water or steam created by heat from the Earth or 

that have subsurface areas of dry hot rock. A lease grants the exclusive right to explore for, develop, 

and produce the mineral commodity identified in the lease. Lease stipulations are used to limit or 

constrain those rights. Lease notices are used to make the lessee aware of constraints based on 

existing law or regulation. Lease regulations for the Forest Service are found in 36 CFR 228 Subpart 

E. Leasing is a discretionary decision and activity and the Forest Service can decide against leasing 

oil and gas and geothermal, but doing so must be fully justified and documented in our 

environmental analysis of the leasing decision per 36 CFR 228.102 (c). The Forest Service cannot 

deny lease operations of an application for a permit to drill or a mine plan except where it would 

violate the Endangered Species Act or some other statute, but can mitigate impacts within the terms 

of the lease and to the extent negotiated with the lessee/operator. 

Locatable minerals – Minerals that may be located and removed from Federal lands under the 

General Mining Law of 1872 as amended and which were not excepted in later legislation. They 

include hard rock, placer, and industrial minerals and uncommon varieties of rocks found on public 

domain lands. This category includes gold, silver, manganese, copper, and other valuable deposits 

specifically named in the law. Later regulatory acts removed certain mineral and energy resource 

from the locatable classification. The role of the Forest Service in this process is to minimize 

environmental impacts on NFS surface resources. It does not manage the mineral resource per se; the 

responsibility for managing the mineral resource is in the Department of the Interior. The Forest 

Service manages the surface resources and the surface management regulations are found at 36 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 228, Subpart A, Locatable Minerals. More information on the 

requirements of the locatable minerals surface management regulation are found in 36 CFR 228 

Subpart A. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

779

Maintenance level – Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a 

specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.59, 

62.32). 

• Maintenance level 1. Roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. The 

period or storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to prevent 

damage to resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road for future resource 

management needs. 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” all traffic. 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/motorized traffic but may be available and 

suitable for non-motorized uses

• Maintenance level 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger 

car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning signs and 

traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, such as 

“Warning No Traffic” signs may be posted at intersections. Motorists should have no 

expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. Traffic is 

normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate 

traffic management strategies are either to (a) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (b) 

accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

• Maintenance level 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver 

in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. The 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. Warning signs and traffic control 

devices are provided to alert motorists of situations that may violate expectations. Roads in 

this maintenance level are typically low speed, with single lanes and turnouts. Appropriate 

traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” 

strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

• Maintenance level 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. 

However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The most appropriate traffic 

management strategy is “encourage,” however, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific 

classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

• Maintenance level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate 

surfaced and dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The 

appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Mineral materials or saleable minerals – Include petrified wood, common varieties of sand, 

gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials. Such mineral materials 

include deposits which although they have economic values, are used for agriculture, animal 

husbandry, building, abrasion, construction, landscaping, and similar uses. Peat is also a mineral 

material. Mineral materials regulations are found in 36CFR 228 Subpart C. The Forest Service is 

responsible for managing the surface occupancy and use of NFS lands and the disposal of certain 

mineral materials. The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 provides for the disposal of mineral materials 

(common varieties). It specifically requires competitive bidding for mineral materials on public 

domain lands unless it is impracticable to obtain competition.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

780

Mosaic – Pattern of patches, corridors and matrix (forest or non-forest) that form a landscape in its 

entirety.

National Forest System road (NFS road) – A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and 

serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources (23 USC 101, 36 CFR 212.1, 36 CFR 251.51, 36 CFR 261.2, FSM 7705). 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) – Systematic process to estimate annual recreation and 

other uses of NFS lands through user surveys. The National Visitor Use Monitoring process includes 

a survey to develop statistically accurate estimates of national forest visitor use; the survey began in 

2000 and will continue indefinitely, during which 20 percent of all national forests will participate in 

a given year. Use information is gathered in five categories: day use developed sites, overnight use 

developed sites, general forest areas, wilderness, and viewing corridors.

Natural events – Natural disturbances such as seismic activity, windstorms, and wildfires, which 

may be excused from exceedances of National Ambient Air Quality Standards “if they occur over 

natural undisturbed areas or areas that have been disturbed by human activities with appropriate 

controls in place.” (Source: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/NEAP/InfoOnDust.pdf, New Mexico 

Environment Department 2000) 

Natural fire regime – The fire regime that existed before human-facilitated interruption of 

frequency, extent, or severity.

Niche – Specific focus area within which the unit is most suited to add value to the agency and 

society and from which features in recreation sites facilitate the unique opportunities and benefits. 

Niche is the best “fit” in which to operate sites given the context in which they exist. It is simply 

another term to reflect how the broader agency role or mission is narrowed to provide a more precise 

interpretation of how the broader mission will be delivered by the recreation sites and opportunities 

on a specific unit within its unique context. The forest’s niche has been referred to as the overlap 

between “assets” and customer demand, both existing and potential, including new market segments. 

Assets may include geology, topography, climate, vegetation, and history that make the forest 

attractive for specific activities and experiences. Assets are also “special places” that make the forest 

unique and highly valued by communities. Frequently, these places have been nationally recognized 

by designations such as wilderness areas, scenic byways, historic sites, wild and scenic rivers, or 

national recreation areas.

Nitrogen oxides (NO2) – Group of highly reactive gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying 

amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. The common pollutant nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) can often be seen combined with particles in the air as a reddish-brown layer over 

many urban areas. Nitrogen oxides are formed when the oxygen and nitrogen in the air react with 

each other during combustion. The formation of nitrogen oxides is favored by high temperatures and 

excess oxygen (more than is needed to burn the fuel). The primary sources of nitrogen oxides are 

motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn 

fuels. (Source: http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile 

Source Emissions)

Nonattainment region – Geographic area in which the level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than 

the level allowed by the NAAQS (Source: http://www.nps.gov/dscw/definitionsdc_n.htm, National 

Park Service Denver Service Center Workflows Definitions 2011). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

781

Northern goshawk nest areas – Nest areas are approximately 30 acres in size and include active 

nests followed by the most recently used historic nest areas. Approximately 180 acres of nest areas 

are designated within each post-fledging area and minimally include 3 nest areas and 3 replacement 

nest areas.

Northern goshawk post-fledging areas – Areas that include the nest sites and habitat most likely to 

be used by the fledglings during their early development. Post-fledging family areas are 

approximately 600 acres in size.

Noxious weed – A legal term applied to plants regulated by Federal and State laws, such as plants 

designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. 

Noxious weeds generally possess one of the more of the following characteristics: aggressive and 

difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insect or disease, and 

being not native or new or not common to the United States or parts thereof. 

Old growth – Old growth in southwestern forested ecosystems is different than the traditional 

definition based on northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among 

southwestern forest types and natural disturbances, old-growth forests vary extensively in tree size, 

age classes, presence, and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of understory. 

Old growth refers to specific habitat components that occur in forests and woodlands—old trees, 

dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity. These important 

habitat features may occur in small areas, with only a few components, or over larger areas as stands 

or forests where old growth is concentrated. In the Southwest, old growth is considered 

“transitional,” given that the location of old-growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of 

succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality). Some species, notably certain plants, require 

“old forest” communities that may or may not have old-growth components, but have escaped 

significant disturbance for lengths of time necessary to provide the suitable stability and 

environment. 

Openings – Spatial breaks between groups or patches of trees, as large as or larger than groups, that 

contain grass, forb, shrub, and/or tree seedlings but are largely devoid of big trees, with a total tree 

cover of less than 10 percent in openings. 

Ozone – Gaseous molecule that contains three oxygen atoms (O3). Ozone can exist either high in the 

atmosphere, where it shields the Earth against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, or close to the 

ground, where it is the main component of smog. Ground-level ozone is a product of reactions 

involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a potent irritant 

that causes lung damage and a variety of respiratory problems. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions) 

PAOT – Acronym for persons-at-one-time; a measure of facility or site designed recreation carrying 

capacity, particularly for developed sites. National conventions include 5 persons per family picnic 

or camp unit, 3.5 persons per parking lot stall at a trailhead or visitor center, 1.5 persons per 

motorcycle parking stall, and 40 persons per tour bus parking stall. 

Patches – Areas larger than tree groups in which the vegetation composition and structure are 

relatively homogeneous. Patches comprise the mid-scale, thus they range in size from 100 to 1,000 

acres.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

782

Particulate matter (PM) – Tiny particles or liquid droplets suspended in the air that can contain a 

variety of chemical components. Larger particles are visible as smoke or dust and settle out relatively 

rapidly. The tiniest particles can be suspended in the air for long periods of time and are the most 

harmful to human health because they can penetrate deep into the lungs. Some particles are directly 

emitted into the air. They come from a variety of sources such as cars, trucks, buses, factories, 

construction sites, tilled fields, unpaved roads, stone crushing, and wood burning. Other particles are 

formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions) 

Permitted use – is the number of animals, period of use, and location of use specified in part 1 of 

the grazing permit (see also definition for authorized use).

Pollutants (pollution) – Unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the environment. 

Pollutants can harm human health, the environment, and property. Air pollutants occur as gases, 

liquid droplets, and solids. Once released into the environment, many pollutants can persist, travel 

long distances, and move from one environmental medium (e.g., air, water, land) to another (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/overview/definitions.htm, EPA Glossary for Mobile Source 

Emissions). 

Primary constituent elements – Physical and biological features within a species’ critical habitat 

that are essential to its conservation and that may require special management considerations or 

protection. Examples of features include: space for individual and population growth and normal 

behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 

breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

Primary standards – Set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” 

populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2011) 

Properly functioning condition – Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows (thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality); filter sediment; capture bedload 

and aid in flood plain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop 

root masses that stabilize streambanks; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to 

provide habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. Two other 

categories for evaluating riparian-wetland condition are:

• Functional-at-risk. Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition, but an existing 

soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. 

• Nonfunctional. Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and, 

consequently, are not reducing erosion and improving water quality. 

Proposed critical habitat – Habitat proposed to be designated for the benefit of any listed or 

proposed species. Notice of proposed critical habitat appears in the Federal Register.

Proposed species – Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed by the Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service to be listed as threatened or endangered.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

783

Protected and target threshold habitat – Mexican spotted owl protected habitat includes protected 

activity centers; all areas in mixed-conifer and pine-oak types (as defined in the 1995 Mexican 

spotted owl recovery plan) with slopes greater than 40 percent, where timber harvest has not 

occurred in the past 20 years; and all legally and administratively reserved lands. Mexican spotted 

owl target/threshold habitat is located outside of Mexican spotted owl protected habitat in mixed 

conifer and pine-oak. Some of the language from the 1995 recovery plan has been incorporated into 

the 1987 plan. The 1995 recovery plan has been replaced by the 2012 recovery plan. 

Recreation capacity – A measure of the number of people a site can reasonably accommodate at one 

time, sometimes measured as persons-at-one-time (PAOT).

Reference conditions – Conditions thought to be present historically before European settlement. 

Resiliency – The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the 

same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to 

adapt to stress and change.

Restoration – The process of assisting in the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed (Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2004). Ecological 

restoration focuses on establishing or re-establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and 

ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem sustainability, resilience, 

and health under current and future conditions. Accordingly, any project or activity that assists in the 

recovery of a degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem can be considered restoration. Restoration 

can be active or passive. Treatments that move ecosystem components toward desired conditions are 

considered restoration as are removal of impacts. Allowing natural processes to move ecosystem 

components toward desired conditions can also assist in the recovery of an ecosystem.

Riparian function – The interaction of various hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes across 

a range of spatial and temporal scales within the riparian environment.

Road decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads 

to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1). For administrative purposes, these roads are not considered 

as existing and are not available for motorized use.

Road maintenance – Upkeep of the entire transportation facility including surface and shoulders, 

parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for its safe and 

efficient utilization (36 CFR 212.1). This work includes brushing of roadside vegetation, falling 

danger trees, road blading, cleaning ditches, cleaning culvert inlets and outlets, etc. 

Scale – Aerial extent of certain plan decisions are described at various scales:

• Fine scale. An area of about 10 acres or less at which the distribution of species is described.

• Mid-scale. An area of 100 to 1,000 acres composed of assemblages of grouped and 

individual species which have similar biophysical conditions. An area at this scale is 

composed of 10 or more fine-scale units.

• Landscape scale. A unit of forest land approximately 10,000 acres or greater, typically 

composed of variable elevations, slopes, aspects, soils, plant associations, and natural 

ecological processes. An area at this scale is composed of 10 or more mid-scale units.

Scenic integrity levels – Measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be 

“complete,” and are determined by three factors: dominance, degree of deviation, and intactness of 

the desired landscape character, and are established based on the existing condition. Scenic Integrity 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

784

disturbances most typically result from human activities, but can also result from natural events 

which exceed the landscape’s historic range of variability in terms of magnitude, duration, or 

intensity. An exception to this is direct human alterations that have become accepted over time as 

positive landscape character attributes; e.g., historic cabins, farms, and ranches. Scenic integrity is 

the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or 

alterations. Scenic integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in 

a national forest (USDA Forest Service 1995). The following definitions refer to both existing scenic 

integrity and scenic integrity objectives.

• Very High Integrity – The valued landscape character appears natural and unaltered with 

only minute if any deviations. These areas generally provide for ecological change only. The 

existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level. 

• High Integrity − The valued landscape character “appears natural or appears unaltered.” 

Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common 

to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. 

• Moderate Integrity – The valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable 

disturbances are minor and must remain visually subordinate to the valued scenery being 

viewed. 

• Low Integrity − The valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations 

begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued 

attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type 

changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. 

• Very Low Integrity – The valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Deviations 

may strongly dominate the valued landscape character and may not borrow from valued 

attributes such size, shape edge effect, and pattern of natural openings. However, deviations 

must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as 

unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition. (USDA 

Forest Service 1995a, pp. 2-4). 

Secondary standards – Set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2011). 

Sensitive species – Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution.

Site type – The type of recreation site. Recreation sites are divided into several categories (i.e., 

family campground, fishing site, trailhead, interpretive site minor, horse camp, etc.). 

Smoke management unit (SMU) – Any of the geographic areas defined by the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality whose area is based on primary watershed boundaries and whose outline is 

determined by diurnal windflow patterns that allow smoke to follow predictable drainage patterns 

(map available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/images/mgmt.jpg). (Source: ARS 18-2-

1501) 

Soil function – An ecological service, role, or task that soil performs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Glossary

Coconino National Forest

785

Soils condition classes – There are four types of soil condition classes: satisfactory, impaired, 

unsatisfactory, and inherently unstable. 

• Satisfactory – Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning 

properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs 

is high. 

• Impaired – Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function 

properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to 

degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate the ecosystem to 

determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land management 

practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate. 

• Unsatisfactory – Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of 

vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain 

outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved 

management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions. 

• Inherently unstable – These soils have natural erosion exceeding tolerable limits. Based on 

the Universal Soil Loss Equation, these soils are eroding faster than they are renewing but 

are functioning properly and normally. 

Special use authorization – A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, or easement, or other 

written instrument that grants rights or privileges of occupancy and use subject to specified terms 

and conditions on NFS land. 

Streamside management zone – Area of vegetation or forest litter located adjacent to stream 

courses and/or riparian areas for the purpose of filtering sediment, providing bank stability, and 

providing shade for fisheries habitat in tree/shrub ecosystems. 

Structure (vegetation) – The presence, size, and physical arrangement of vegetation in a stand. 

Vertical structure refers to the variety of plant heights, from the canopy to the forest floor. Horizontal 

structure refers to the types, sizes, and distribution of trees and other plants across the land surface. 

Forestlands with substantial structural diversity provide a variety of niches for different wildlife 

species.

Sustainability – A goal for economic development and natural resource management. Ecosystem 

sustainability is the capacity of an ecosystem for long-term maintenance of ecological processes and 

functions, biological diversity, and productivity. It is also called ecological sustainability, which 

generally refers to land management practices that provide goods and services from an ecosystem 

without degradation of the site quality and without a decline in the yield of goods and services over 

time.

Temporary road – A road necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, 

lease, or other written authorization that is not a National Forest System road and that is not included 

in the transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 

Term grazing permit – The document used to authorize individuals, partnerships, or corporations to 

graze livestock if only NFS grazing capacity is involved. Term permits are issued to livestock 

operators for a period up to l0 years, to graze a specified number, kind, and class of livestock for a 

specific season and area of use. (FSM 2231.11)

Terrestrial ecosystem survey (also called terrestrial ecological unit inventory or TEUI) – A 

classification of ecological types and mapped terrestrial ecological units at a consistent standard 

throughout NFS lands. Ecological units are designed to identify land and water areas at different 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

786

levels of resolution based upon similar capabilities and potentials for response to management and 

natural disturbances. Capabilities and potentials derive from multiple elements: climate, 

geomorphology, geology, soils, water, and potential vegetation. 

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) – Written analysis that determines the maximum amount of a 

pollutant that a surface water can assimilate (the “load”) and still attain water quality standards 

during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the surface water to point sources 

and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for natural background levels and 

seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of safety.

Unauthorized road – Road that is not a National Forest System road or a temporary road and that is 

not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2353.05, FSM 7705). 

Uncharacteristic fire – Fire burning at a severity, frequency, or scale outside the historic range of 

variability. 

Uneven-aged forests – Forests that are composed of three or more distinct age classes of trees, 

either intimately mixed or in small groups.

Viable populations – A population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range 

required to meet recovery for listed species) within the planning area. 

Visibility – Visual impact of haze on the ability of the eye to perceive scenery.

Visual quality objectives (VQOs) – A management tool used in the Visual Management System to 

measure the scenic quality of the landscape of NFS lands and the public’s level of concern for that 

scenic quality. The following is a description of each of the five VQOs:

• Preservation. Allow ecological changes only; management activities are prohibited, with 

exception of very low-visual impact recreation facilities.

• Retention. Management activities not visually evident.

• Partial retention. Management activities remain visually subordinate.

• Modification. May visually dominate characteristic landscape, but must follow naturally 

established line, form, color, etc. 

• Maximum modification. Management activities may dominate the landscape, but mostly 

appear to borrow from characteristic form, color, line, etc. 

Wild and scenic river – A river selected for nomination and/or designation through the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 for possessing outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Wilderness – A congressionally designated area that is part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System established through the Wilderness Act of 1964; generally larger than 5,000 acres and 

retaining its primeval character, where nature and its forces work undisturbed by human activity.

Wildland-urban Interface – Includes those areas of resident populations at imminent risk from 

wildfire and human developments having special significance. These areas may include critical 

communications sites, critical sites for water supply, 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

787

References

36 Code of Federal Regulations 219, Subpart A, Transition provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule 

allow use of the 1982 Planning Rule to amend or revise plans 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 228, Subpart A, Locatable Minerals, 9 pp. 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 228, Subpart C, Disposal of Mineral Materials, 13 pp. 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 228, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Resources, 14 pp. 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 290, Cave Resources Management.

43 Code of Federal Regulations 3200, Geothermal Resource Leasing, 59 pp. 

Abella, S., P. Fulé, and W. Covington. 2006. Diameter caps for thinning southwestern ponderosa pine 

forests: Viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry, pp. 407-414. 

Abella, S., W. Covington, P. Fulé, L. Lentile, A. Sánchez Meador, and P. Morgan. 2007. Past, 

present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests of the western United States. 

Ecology and Society 12(2): 16. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art16/

Abella, S., and P. Fulé, 2008a. Fire effects on Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine-oak 

forests. Res. Note RMRS-RN-34. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 6 pp. 

Abella, S., and P. Fulé. 2008b. Changes in Gambel oak densities in southwestern ponderosa pine 

forests since Euro-American settlement. Res. Note RMRS-RN-36. Fort Collins, CO: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 6 pp. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 493 pp. 

Ahlstrom, R., M. Adair, R.T. Euler, and R.C. Euler. 1992. Pothunting in Central Arizona: The Perry 

Mesa Archeological Site Vandalism Study. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region and 

USDI. Bureau of Land Management 

Alexander, S.M. and N.M. Waters. 2000. The effects of highway transportation corridors on wildlife: 

a case study of Banff National Park. Transportation Research Part C. 8(2000): 307-320. 

Allen, C., tech. ed. 1996. Fire effects of southwestern forests: Proceedings of the second La Mesa 

Fire symposium; 1994 March 29–31; Los Alamos, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR286. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 216 pp. 

Andersen, D., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1990. Home range changes in raptors exposed to 

increased human activity levels in southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 134-

142. 

Archer, S.R. and K. Predict. 2008. Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern United 

States. Rangelands 30: 23-28. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

788

Arizona Department of Commerce. 2008. Arizona County Profiles. Retrieved June 6, 2011 from 

http://www.azcommerce.com. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2003. Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan for the State of Arizona. Published December 23, 2003. Retrieved November 2, 2011 

from http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2004. The Status of Water Quality in 

Arizona – 2004. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. 

Prepared by Water Quality Division, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2008. 2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface 

Water Quality in Arizona, Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing 

Report. November 2008. Prepared by Water Quality Division, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), June 16, 2010. Lake Mary Regional 

TMDL, OFR# 10-02. 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/Lake_Mary_Region_Draft-6-16-

2010.pdf

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan. 

Regional Haze Under Section 308 Of the Federal Regional Haze Rule. Published January 

2011. Retrieved April 8, 2015 from https://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2015. 2012/2014 Status of Water Quality, 

Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. August 2015. Prepared 

by Water Quality Division, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 2005 Historic Route 66 Corridor Management Plan. 

Prepared by Baker Engineering and Energy. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of 

Transportation Environmental and Enhancement Group. 47 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD). 2002a. Colorado pikeminnow. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD). 2002b. Desert sucker. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD). 2002c. Gila chub. Unpublished abstract compiled 

and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD). 2002d. Gila trout. Unpublished abstract compiled 

and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD). 2002e. Razorback sucker. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2002f. Sonora sucker. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD) 2003a. Southwestern myotis. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

789

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2003b. Flagstaff beardtongue. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 3 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2003c. Sunset crater beardtongue. Unpublished 

abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 3 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2005. Bigelow’s onion. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (AZGFD) 2006a. Lowland leopard frog. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Phoenix, AZ. 10 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2006b. Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment. The 

Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup. 22 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2009. Management Guidelines for Pronghorn. 

Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2010. State Wildlife Action Plan species list. 

Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2011a. Online Field Guide to the Reptiles and 

Amphibians of Arizona. Retrieved online September 26, 2011 from 

http://www.reptilesofaz.org/index.html. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2011b. Arizona Statewide Pronghorn Management 

Plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 101 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-

2022. Phoenix, AZ. [online] http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/2012-

2022_Arizona_State_Wildlife_Action_Plan.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2013a. The Coconino County wildlife connectivity 

assessment: report on stakeholder input. Unpublished report, 52 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2013b. Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity 

Assessment: Detailed Linkages. San Francisco Peaks – Mogollon Rim Linkage Design.

Phoenix, Arizona.

Arizona Geological Survey and Association of American State Geologists (AGS & AASG) 2015. 

Field Trip: San Francisco Volcanic Field, Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument and 

Wupatki National Monument. 11 pp. 

Arizona State Demographer’s Office. 2016. Population Projections: 2015-2050 State and County 

Population Projections, Detail Tables. Accessed August 22, 2016, from 

https://population.az.gov/population-projections. 

Arizona State Parks. 2003. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Partnerships 

Division, Arizona State Parks and Land and Water Conservation Fund. 114 pp. 

Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan-2008. 

Phoenix: Arizona State Parks. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

790

Arizona State Parks. 2013. 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Resources and Public Programs Section. Arizona State Parks. 171 pp. 

http://azstateparks.com/publications/index.html#SCORP2012 

Austin, W., K. Day, S. Franklin, J. Humphrey, W. Hunt, C. Parish, R. Sieg, and K. Sullivan. 2007. A 

review of the second five years of the California condor reintroduction program in the 

Southwest. Unpublished report submitted to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 80 pp. 

Bassett, D., M. Larson, and W. Moir. 1987. Forest and woodland habitat types (plant associations) of 

Arizona south of the Mogollon Rim and southwestern New Mexico. (2nd ed.) Albuquerque, 

NM: USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Bat Conservation International. 2011. Bat Conservation and Management Workshop. Course 

Booklet. Portal, Arizona.

Beard, L.S. and C.E. Ellis. 1984. Fossil Springs Roadless Area, Arizona. In: Wilderness Mineral 

Potential Assessment of Mineral-Resource Potential in U.S. Forest Service Lands Studies 

1964-1984, Marsh. S. P, Kropschot, S. J. and R. G. Dickenson editors, Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1300, Volume 1, pp. 62-64. 

Belnap, J., R. Rosentreter, S. Leonard, J.H. Kaltenecker, J. Williams, D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological 

Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI BLM Technical Reference 1730-2. 

Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. “In My Experience ...” A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife 

Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440.

Bennett, A.F. 2003. Linkages in the Landscape. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife 

Conservation. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 254 pp. 

Bernardos, D.A., C. L. Chambers, and M. J. Rabe. Selection of Gambel Oak Roosts by Southwestern 

Myotis in Ponderosa Pine Dominated Forests, Northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 68(3): 595-601. 

Berry, K.H. 1980. The effects of four-wheel vehicles on biological resources. Pp. 231-233 in: R. N. 

L. Andrews and P. Nowak (editors), Off-Road Vehicle Use: a Management Challenge. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 

Berwick, S.H. 1968. Observations on the decline of the Rock Creek, Montana, population of bighorn 

sheep. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 245pp. 

Beus, S. S. (1978). Late Devonian (Frasnian) invertebrate fossils from the Jerome Member of the 

Martin Formation, Verde Valley, Arizona. Journal of Paleontology, 40-54. 

Beyerhelm, C. and T. Mellin. 2011. Personal Communication regarding Coconino-Kaibab Mid-scale 

Accuracy Assessment. 

Bissonette, J.A., and S.A. Rosa. 2009. Road Zone Effects in Small Mammal Communities. Ecology 

and Society 14:1-15. 

Blakey, R. C. (1990). Stratigraphy and geologic history of Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks, 

Mogollon Rim region, central Arizona and vicinity. Geological Society of America Bulletin

102(9), 1189-1217. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

791

Bond, W.J. and J.E. Keeley. 2005. Fire as a global “herbivore”: the ecology and evolution of 

flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (7): 387-394. 

Bouchard, J., A.T. Ford, F.E. Eigenbrod, and L. Fahrig. 2009. Behavioral Responses of Northern 

Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) to Roads and Traffic: Implications for Population Persistence. 

Ecology and Society 14(2): 23.

Boucher, P., and G. Goodwin. 1984. San Francisco Peaks Alpine Tundra Survey, Elden and Flagstaff 

Ranger Districts. Survey Results for Senecio franciscanus. 9 pp. 

Brattstrom, B.H. 1995. Wildlife mortalities in PVC claim posts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 765-

766. 

Brown, D., C. Lowe, and J. Hausler, 1977. Southwestern riparian communities: their biotic 

importance and management in Arizona. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. 

Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium: Proceedings; 

1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 201−211. 

Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. Pages 171-178 In 

Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18-22, 1994, 

Anchorage, AK. Society of American Foresters, Washington DC. 

Burns, R., and B. Hankala, tech. cords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. 

Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 pp. 

Bury, R.B., R.A. Luckenbach, and S.D. Busack. 1977. Effects of Off-Road Vehicles on Vertebrates 

in the California Desert. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fish and Wildlife

Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History. Washington, D.C. 23 pp. 

Buttrey, B. 2011. Forest Restoration at Camp Navajo in Northern Arizona. Unpublished. Bellemont, 

AZ: Camp Navajo Military Installation. 47 pp. 

Canfield, J.E., L.J. Lyon, J.M. Hillis, and M.J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1-6.25 in G. 

Joslin and H Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A 

Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montan Chapter of 

The Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Causey, J. D. 1998. MAS/MILS Arc/Info point coverage for the Western U.S. (excluding Hawaii). 

U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 98-512. 25 pp. 

Center for Environmental Quality. 2011. CEQ Guide Sacramento Air Quality Management District: 

Chapter 3, Construction-Generated Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Revised 

May 2011. 

Chambers, C.L. 2002. Forest management and the dead wood resource in ponderosa pine forests: 

effects on small mammals. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 

Chapin, III, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, D.U.

Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack, and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequences 

of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405, pp. 234-242, 11 May 2000. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

792

Chojnacky, D. 1997. Modeling Diameter Growth for Pinyon and Juniper Trees in Dryland Forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management, 93(1997), 21-31. 

Cione, N.K., P.E. Padgett, and E.B. Allen. 2002. Restoration of a Native Shrubland Impacted by 

Exotic Grasses, Frequent Fire, and Nitrogen Deposition in Southern California. Restoration 

Ecology 10 (2): 376-384. 

City of Flagstaff. 2014. Flagstaff Regional Plan. 303 pp. 

http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?nid=2936

City of Sedona. 2014. Sedona Community Plan. 155 pp. http://www.sedonaaz.gov/yourgovernment/departments/community-development/development-services/sedonacommunity-plan

Coconino County. 2003. Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. 172 pp. 

http://coconino.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2992

Cole, D. 1986. Resource impacts caused by recreation. In: The President's Commission on 

Americans Outdoors (U.S.): a literature review. Washington, D.C.: The Commission: 

Management 1-11. [online] http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1986_cole_d001.pdf

Conca, James Louis, 1985, Differential Weathering Effects and Mechanisms, PhD Thesis, California 

Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 267 pp. 

Cordell, H., B. McDonald, R. Teasley, J. Bergstrom, J. Martin, J. Bason, and V. Leeworthy. 1999. 

Outdoor recreation participation trends, pp. 219-321. In: H. Cordell et al. Outdoor 

Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. 

Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL. 449 p. [online] 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/viewpub.jsp?index=767

Corman, T., and C. Wise-Gervais. Eds. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico Press.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017a. All About Birds – Evening Grosbeak. Accessed July 24, 2017, 

from https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Evening_Grosbeak/id. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017b. All About Birds – Golden-crowned Kinglet. Accessed July 24, 

2017, from https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Golden-crowned_Kinglet/id. 

Coulloudon, G., K. Eshelman, J. Gianola, N. Habich, L. Hughes, C. Johnson, M. Pellant, P. 

Podborny, A. Rasmussen, B. Robles, P. Shaver, J. Spehar, and J. Willoughby. 1999. 

Sampling Vegetation Attributes. Bureau of Land Management Interagency Technical Report. 

1734-4, 163 pp. Denver, Colorado. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Guidance On the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure and resource 

conditions: changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92 (1): 39-47. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

793

Crimmins, T. 1999. Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle User Survey: Summary of Results. Completed 

for Colorado State Park OHV Program.

Crisp, D. 1997. Prescribed fire effects on Flagstaff pennyroyal (Hedeoma diffusum). An independent 

study project for Northern Arizona University. Unpublished report. 24 pp. 

Daniel, T., and R. Boster. 1976. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation 

Method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. May 1976. [online] 

http://www.ideal.forestry.ubc.ca/frst524/03_DanielBoster.pdf. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. New York. 333 pp. 

Dee Galt, F., J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J.Holechek. 2000. Grazing Capacity and Stocking Rate. 

Rangelands 22(6): 7–11. December 2000. Lakewood, Colorado. 

DeVelice, R., and J. Ludwig. 1983. Forest habitat types south of the Mogollon Rim, Arizona and 

New Mexico. Final report: Cooperative Agreement No. 28-K2-240. Las Cruces, NM: New 

Mexico State University. 47 pp. 

Dexter, L. 2007. Mapping impacts related to the Senecio franciscanus. Forest Service Agreement 

Number: 06-CR-11030416-777. Final Report to Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.

Dickson, B.G., J.S. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads on 

Cougar Movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 264-276. 

Dixon, G. 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. 240 pp. (Revised: February 25, 2013).

Dockery, D.W.; Pope, C.A., III; Xu, X.; Spengler, J.D.; Ware, J.H.; Fay, M.E.; Ferris, B.G., Jr.; 

Speizer, F.E. 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. New 

England Journal of Medicine 329: 1753–1759. 

Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Sprague, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2011. Assessment of 

Pronghorn Movements and Strategies to Promote Highway Permeability. Final Report for 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-AZ-10-619. 

84 pp. 

Driscoll, J., Jacobson, K., Beatty, G., Canaca, J., and J. Koloszar. 2006. Conservation assessment and 

strategy for the bald eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 173. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Drost, C.A., O’Donnell, R.P., Mock, K.E., and Theimer, T.C., 2011, Population status and 

population genetics of northern leopard frogs in Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2011–1186, 36 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1186/]. 

Duffield, W., Morgan, P., and J. Sall. 2000. Untapped Potential? The San Francisco Volcanic Field, 

Arizona. Geothermal Resources Council, Bulletin, 29(3), 97-99. 

Dyer, J.M., and K.E. Moffett. 1999. Meadow invasion from high-elevation Spruce Fir forest in 

south-central New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 44: 445-457. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

794

Earl, S., and D. Blinn. 2003. Effects of wildfire ash on water chemistry and biota in south-western 

U.S.A. streams. Freshwater Biology, 48, pp. 1015-1030. 

Ecology Dictionary. n.d. EPA Terms of Environment Dictionary. Retrieved October 6, 2011, from 

http://www.ecologydictionary.org/EPA-Terms-of-Environment-Dictionary/

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985a. Movements of Elk in Relation to Logging Disturbances. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 49(4): 926-930. 

Edge, W.D., C.L. Marcum. 1985b. Effects of Logging Activities on Home-Range Fidelity of Elk. 

The Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3): 741-744. 

Edge, W.D., and C.L. Marcum. 1991. Topography ameliorates the effects of roads and human 

disturbance on elk. Pages 132-137 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Lonner, 

compilers. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana. 

Elston, D.P., E.H. McKee, G.R. Scott, and G. Dale Gray. 1974a. Miocene-Pliocene Volcanism in the 

Hackberry Mountain Area and Evolution of the Verde Valley, North Central Arizona, In: 

Geology of Northern Arizona, with Notes on Archaeology and Paleoclimate Part II – Area 

Studies and Field Guides. Geological Society of America. Rocky Mountain Section Meeting. 

Pages 604-610. 

Elston, D.P., J.D. Nations, and G. Dale Gray. 1974b. Field guide for southeast Verde Valley – 

Northern Hackberry Mountain Area, North-central Arizona, In: Geology of Northern 

Arizona, with Notes on Archaeology and Paleoclimate Part II – Area Studies and Field 

Guides. Geological Society of America. Rocky Mountain Section Meeting. Pages 630-644. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 225, Coordination of Geothermal Leasing and Permitting on 

Federal Lands, 1 p. 

Etzel, K.E., T.C. Theimer, M.J. Johnson, and J.A.Holmes. 2014. Variation in Prey Delivered to 

Common Black-Hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) Nests in Arizona Drainage Basins. Journal 

of Raptor Research (48(1): 54-60. 

Fahrig, L. and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and 

synthesis. Ecology and Society 14(1): 21-41. 

Fairweather, M.L., B.W. Geils, and M. Manthei. 2007. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. In: McWilliams, M.G. comp. 2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western International 

Forest Disease Work Conference; 2007 October 15-19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Department of Forestry.

Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgerson, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to Riverscapes: Bridging 

the Gap between Research and Conservation of Stream Fishes. BioScience 52(6): 483-498. 

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA). 2005. Assessing the 

Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level – Final 

Report. Chapter 8. [online] 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/effects_of_freight_movement

/chapter08.cfm
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

795

Finkral, A.J., and A.M. Evans. 2007. The Effects of a Thinning Treatment on Carbon Stocks in a 

Northern Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743-2750. 

Fitzhugh, E., W. Moir, J. Ludwig, and F. Ronco. 1987. Forest habitat types in the Apache, Gila, and 

part of the Cibola National Forests, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-145. 

Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 116 pp.

Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce. 2011. 99 Things to Do in Northern Arizona. 

Flagstaff Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2010. Flagstaff Snowplay Study. Prepared by the Arizona 

Hospitality and Resource Center, Northern Arizona University. 

Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Fossils from the Permian Hermit Shale in the Sedona Oak Creek Area, 2007. 

http://www.schursastrophotography.com/paleo/sedonal.html 

Freddy, D.J. 1977. Snowmobile harrassment of mule deer on cold winter ranges. Colorado Division 

of Wildlife, Federal Aid Project. W-38-R-32 Game Res, Rep. July 1977. pp. 89-104. Part 1. 

Fulé, P. 2008. Does it Make Sense to restore Wildland Fire in Changing Climate? Restoration 

Ecology, 16(4), pp. 526-531. 

Fulé, P., Laughlin, D., and W. Covington. 2005. Pine-oak forest dynamics five years after ecological 

restoration treatments, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 218 (2005), pp. 

129–145. 

Gagnon, J.W., T.C. Theimer, N.L. Dodd, S. BOE, andR.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Traffic Volume 

Alters Elk Distribution and Highway Crossings in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

71(7):2318-2323. 

Ganey, J.L. 1999. Snag density and composition of snag populations on two national forests in 

northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 117(1999) 169–178. 

Ganey, J.L., Bird, B.J., Baggett, S. and J.S. Jenness. 2014. Density of large snags and logs in 

Northern Arizona mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests. Forest Science 61:353-362. 

Gatewood, S. and H.M. Hampton. 2009. Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Blue Ridge Area and 

Mogollon Rim Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest. 52 pp. 

Geist, V. 1971. Bighorn sheep ecology. Wildlife Society News. 136:61. 

Geist, V. 1978. Behavior. Pages 283-296 in J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert, editors. Big game of 

North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

494 pp. 

Gillette, D. 2004. Email. Hermit Shale Fossils, State Highway Route 179. December 22, 2004. 2 pp. 

Gillette, D. 2011. Personal communication with Polly Haessig, Coconino National Forest at the 

Museum of Northern Arizona, August 15, 2011. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

796

Gillette, D. 2013. O’Neil’s Hermit Shale Track site, Red rock RD, Coconino National Forest, 

Summary of field Observations. June 20, 2013. 7 pp. 

Gobster, P. 1994. The aesthetic experience of sustainable forest ecosystems. In: Covington, W. and L. 

Debano, tech. coord., Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological 

Approach to Land Management, 1993 July 12−15; Flagstaff, Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM247, pp. 246−255. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Gore, L. 2005. Paleontological Resources Report. Coconino National Forest, Lake Mary Road and 

Highway 179, Sedona. 3 pp. 

Gori, D., and J. Bate. 2007. Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition Modeling of 

Historical and Current Landscape Conditions for Potential Natural Vegetation Types in the 

Southwest. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature 

Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. [online] 

http://azconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_HRV_Pinyon_Juniper.pdf

Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership and Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council (GFFP and PFAC). 2005. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Flagstaff and Surrounding Communities in the 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forests of the Coconino County, Arizona. 136 pp. 

Groebner D., A. Girmendonk, and T. Johnson. 1995. A proposed cooperative reintroduction plan for 

the Mexican Wolf in Arizona. Tech. Rep. 56. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Grubb, T.G., L.L. Pater, A.E. Gatto, D.K. Delaney. 2013. Response of nesting goshawks to logging 

truck noise in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:1618-1625. 

Gutschick, V.P. and H. BassiriRad. 2003. Extreme Events as Shaping Physiology, Ecology, and 

Evolution of Plants: Toward a UnifiedDefinition and Evaluation of Their Consequences. The 

New Phytologist. 160(1): 21-42.Hann, W., and D. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management 

planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 

v. 10, no. 3/4, p. 389-403. 

Haider, W. and L. Hunt. Environmental Management (2002) 29: 324. Available online at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0009-Z 

Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton, 

and J. Jones. 2004. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Interagency and The 

Nature Conservancy Fire Regime Condition Class Website. USDA Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental 

Management.

Hardison, D. W. Jr., L. Q. Ma, T. Luongo, and W. G. Harris. 2003. Lead contamination in shooting 

range soils from abrasion of lead bullets and subsequent weathering. Science of the Total 

Environment 328: 175-183. 

Hardy, C.C., K.M. Schmidt, J.M. Menakis, and N.R. Samson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire 

planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

797

Hathcock, C.D. and J.M. Fair. 2014. Hazards to the Birds from Open Metal Pipes. Western North 

American Naturalist 74(2): 228–230. 

Haufler, J. B., C. A. Mehl, and G. J. Roloff. 1999. Conserving Biological Diversity Using a CoarseFilter Approach with a Species Assessment. Pages 17–34 in R.K. Baydack, H. Campa III and 

J.B. Haufler (eds.). Practical approaches to the conservation of biological diversity. Island 

Press, Covelo, CA. 

Hendee, J., and C. Dawson. 2001. Stewardship to Address the Threats to Wilderness Resources and 

Values. International Journal of Wilderness, December 2001, 7(3). 9 pp. 

Henle, K., D.B. Lindenmayer, C.R. Margules, D.A. Saunders, and C. Wissel. Species survival in 

fragmented landscapes: where are we now? Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 1–8.

Herbel, C. H., E.N. Ares, and R.A. Wright. 1972. Drought Effects on a Semi-desert Grassland, 

Ecology 53, 1084-1093. 

Hereford, R. (1977).. Deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone (Cambrian) in central Arizona. Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, 88(2), 199-211. 

Hessburg, P. F., and J. S. Beatty. 1985. Incidence, severity, and growth losses associated with 

ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. Forest Pest 

Management Report R3 85-12, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

Hevly, R. H. (1974).. Recent paleoenvironments and geological history at Montezuma Well. Journal 

of the Arizona Academy of Science 9(2): 66-75. 

Hill, N. 2016. Coconino National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Report. 

Unpublished report. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

Hoffmeister, D. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ. 602 pp. 

Holechek, J. 1988. An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate. Rangelands 10(1): 10–14. February 

1988. Lakewood, Colorado. 

Horne, A., and R. Hayes. 1999. Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the Interior 

Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-453. April 

1999. 

Hurteau, M., North, M. 2009. Fuel Treatment Effects on Tree-based Forest Carbon Storage and 

Emissions under Modeled Wildfire Scenarios. Research Communications 7(8); 409-414. 

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). 2003. An Assessment of Indian Forests and 

Forest Management in the United States. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. 134 pp. 

Iverson, W. 2004. Email. Museum Quality Fossil. December 27, 2004. 3 pp. 

Izco, J. 1998. Types of Rarity of Plant Communities. Journal of Vegetation Science 9(5): 641-646. 

Jaeger, J.A., G.J. Bowman, J. Brennan, L. Fahrig, D. Bert, J. Bouchard, N. Charbonneau, K. Frank, 

B. Gruber, and K. Tluk von Toschanowitz. 2005. Predicting when animal populations are at 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

798

risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecological Modelling

185:329-348. 

Johnson, A. and D. Spildie. 2014. Freshwater resources in designated wilderness areas of the United 

States: A state-of-knowledge review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-324. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 pp. 

Kahl, J.R. 1972. Osprey Management on the Lassen National Forest. Cal-Neva Wildlife. 7 pp.

Keith, S., D. Gest, E. DeWitt, N. Toll, and B. Everson. 1983. Metallic Mineral Districts and 

Production in Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, Geological 

Survey Branch, Bulletin 194. 58 pp. 1 Map. 

Kingery, H., and C. Ghalambor. 2001. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Knorr, O. A. 1957. Communal roosting of the Pygmy Nuthatch. Condor no. 59:398. 

Kruger, O. 2002. Analysis of nest occupancy and nest reproduction in two sympatric raptors: 

common buzzard Buteo buteo and goshawk Accipiter gentilis. Ecography 25: 523–532. 

Lane, M. 1992. Mineral Appraisal of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. USDI Bureau of Mines, 

MLA 11-92. 91 pp. 3 maps. 

Lata, M. 2011. Fire Order Fire Effect Model run on Ponderosa Pine VSS4 with closed canopy under 

2010 Schultz fire conditions and typical prescribed fire conditions. Unpublished raw data. 

Latta, M., C. Beardmore, and T. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 

Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Phoenix, 

AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 331 pp. 

Laughlin, D., J. Bakker, M. Daniels, M. Moore, C. Casey, and J. Springer. 2008. Restoring plant 

species diversity and community composition in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. 

Plant Ecology, 197, pp. 139-151. 

Laurance, W.F. 1991. Edge Effects in Tropical Forest Fragments: Application of a Model for the 

Design of Nature Reserves. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. 

Biological Conservation 57 (1991) 205-219. 15 pp. 

Lewis, R.E. 1983, Geology of the Hackberry Mountain Volcanic Center, Yavapai County, Arizona, 

PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 295 pp. 

Lindberg, P. 2010, Sedona sinkholes and groundwater flow: the geologic history of their evolution, 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report, 

CR10-C, 69 pp. 

Loomis, J., and R. Richardson. 2001. Economic Values of the U.S. Wilderness System. International 

Journal of Wilderness, 7(1), 31-34. 

LR2000 Mining Claim (MC) Geographic Reports. 2011. Retrieved February 14, 2011 and June 15, 

2011 from: http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/ and 

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/landmin/home/index.shtm). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

799

Lucas, S.G., A.B. Heckert, J.A. Spielmann, L.H. Tanner, and A.P. Hunt. (2007). Second day: Early 

and Middle Triassic stratigraphy, paleontology and correlation in northeastern Arizona. 

2007a, 181-188. 

Lynch, A., J. McMillin, S. Dudley, J. Anhold, R. Fitzgibbon, and M. Fairweather. 2007. Forest Insect 

and Disease Activity on the Coconino National Forest 1918−2006. Coconino N.F./Regional 

Analysis Team. pp. 1-27. 

Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal of Forestry

77:658-660. 

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry

81:592-595. 

Manthei, M. 2011a. Unpublished spreadsheet: Annual Sale Quantity (ASQ) Calculations. USDA 

Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Supervisors Office. 

Manthei, M. 2011b. Spreadsheet: Forest Vegetation Simulator – Modeling Outputs for Ponderosa 

Pine Forest. Coconino National Forest, Supervisors Office.

Manthei, M. 2011c. Spreadsheet: Forest Vegetation Simulator – Modeling Outputs for Mixed Conifer 

with Frequent Fire (Dry). Coconino National Forest, Supervisors Office. 

Manthei, M. 2011d. Spreadsheet: Forest Vegetation Simulator – Modeling Outputs for Piñon-juniper 

with Grass. Coconino National Forest, Supervisors Office. 

Maschinski, J., J. Baggs, P. Quintana-Ascencio, and E. Menges. 2006. Using Population Viability 

Analysis to Predict the Effects of Climate Change on the Extinction Risk of an Endangered 

Limestone Endemic Shrub, Arizona Cliffrose. Conservation Biology, 20, pp. 218-228. 

Mast, J. 2003. Tree health and forest structure. In: Friederici, P. ed. Ecological restoration of 

southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Washington, D.C: Island Press. pp. 215-232. 

McGregor, R.L., D.J.Bender, and L. Fahrig. 2008. Do small mammals avoid roads because of the 

traffic? Journal of Applied Ecology 45:117–123. 

McKee, E.D. 1958. The Redwall Limestone. In Guidebook of the Black Mesa Basin, northeastern 

Arizona: New Mex. Geol. Soc. 9th Field Conf, pp. 74-77. 

McKee, E.D. 1982. The Supai Group of Grand Canyon Vol. 1173. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. H8

Miles, P., G. Brand, C. Alerich, L. Bednar, S. Woudenberg, J. Glover, J. and E. Ezzell. 2001. The 

Forest Inventory and Analysis database: Database Description and User’s Manual 1.0. 

General Technical Report NC-218. St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 130 pp. 

Miller, C. 2007. Analysis of Current and Historical Surface Flows and Hydrologic Response to 

Restoration Treatments in the Upper Lake Mary Watershed, Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern 

Arizona University. 78 pp. Thesis. 

Millar, C., Stephenson, N. and S. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-2151. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

800

Miller, G., Ambos, N., Boness, P., Reyher, D., Robertson, G., Scalzone, K., Steinke, R. and T. 

Subirge. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Coconino National Forest. Albuquerque: 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Miller, M.E. 1999. Use of Historic Aerial Photography to Study Vegetation Change in the Negrito 

Creek Watershed, Southwestern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. Vol 44 (2): 121-

137. 

Miller, R. 1972. Classification of the native trouts of Arizona with the description of a new species, 

Salmo apache. Copeia, 3, pp. 401-422. 

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1999. Fire History and Western Juniper Encroachment in Sagebrush 

Steppe. Journal of Range Management, 52:550-559. 

Minckley, W., and N. Alger. 1968. Fish remains from an archaeological site along the Verde River, 

Yavapai County, Arizona. Plateau, 40, pp. 91-97. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2004. IMPLAN Pro user guide, analysis guide, data guide. 3rd 

edition. Stillwater, MN: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.438. pp. 103, 104, 112. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version. 3.0. 

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/economics/software/IMPLAN/index.shtml. 

Moen, A.N. 1978. Seasonal changes in heart rates, activity, metabolism, and forage intake of whitetailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(4):715-738. 

Moir, W., and J. Ludwig. 1979. A classification of spruce-fir and mixed conifer habitat types of 

Arizona and New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 pp. 

Moore, M., W. Covington, and P. Fulé. 1999. Reference Conditions and Ecological Restoration: A 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Perspective. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1266-1277. 

Morgan, P., W. Duffield, J. Sass, and T. Felger, 2003. Searching for an Electrical-Grade Geothermal 

Resource in Northern Arizona to Help Geopower the West. Transactions of the Geothermal 

Research Council, vol. 27, 13 pp. 

Morgan, P., J. Sass, W. Duffield, and L. Peters. 2004. Geothermal Resource Evaluation Program of 

the Eastern San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona. Final Report to the Department of Energy 

Project GRED II Phase I, Agreement: DE-FC04-2002AL68298. 64 pp. 

Morrison, M.L., R.J. Young, J.S. Romsos, and R. Golightly. 2011. Restoring Forest Raptors: 

Influence of Human Disturbance and Forest Condition on Northern Goshawks. Restoration 

Ecology 19(2): 273–279. 

National Park Conservation Association. 2010. State of the Parks Report: Grand Canyon National 

Park. Resource Challenges and Future Directions. August 2010. 

National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, (NPS). 1995. Railroad Logging on the 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, 1887-1966. National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form, pp. 1-50. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

801

National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2006a. Geologic Resource Evaluation 

Scoping Summary, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Arizona. Geologic Resources 

Division. 10 pp. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/publications/s_summaries/MOCA_GRE_scopi

ng_summary_2006-0627.pdf

National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2006b. Geologic Resource Evaluation 

Scoping Summary, Tuzigoot National Monument, Arizona. Geologic Resources Division. 8 

pp. 

https://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/inventory/publications/s_summaries/TUZI_GRE_scopi

ng_summary_2006-0627.pdf

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2007. Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, Arizona. Final Environmental Impact Statement, General Management Plan. 313 

pp. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from 

http://www.nps.gov/waca/parkmgmt/upload/GMP_finalWACA_corr.pdf.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2008. Montezuma Castle-Tuzigoot 

National Monuments General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. 324 pp. 

Retrieved June 25, 2011 from http://www.beavercreekaz.org/MOCATUZI_DGMP_EA_Jan10.pdf. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2011a. National Register Frequently 

Asked Questions. Retrieved October 7, 2011 from http://www.nps.gov/nr/faq.htm. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS). 2011b. Glossary of National Register 

Terms. Retrieved October 7, 2011 from 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/nrb16a_appendix_IV.htm.

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation. 2011. Retrieved 2011 from http://navajonationparks.org/. 

Negrón, J.F. and J.L. Wilson. 2003. Attributes associated with probability of infestation by the piñon 

ips, Ips confusus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in piñon pine, Pinus edulis," Western North 

American Naturalist: Vol. 63: No. 4 , Article 4.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2000. Particulate Air Pollution. Retrieved October 6, 2011 

from http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/NEAP/InfoOnDust.pdf.

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants. Albuquerque, NM: New 

Mexico Rare Plants Home Page. [online] 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/rarelist_single.php?SpeciesID=67. 

Nicholson, K.L., P.R. Krausman, T. Smith, W.B. Ballard, and T. McKinney. 2014. Mountain Lion 

Habitat Selection in Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 59(3): 372-380. 

Nickens, P., S. Larralde, and G. Tucker. 1981. A survey of vandalism to archaeological resources in 

Southwestern Colorado. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, Cultural 

Resources Series No. 11.

Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience 33(11): 700-

706. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

802

Noss, R.F. 1987. Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation 

Biology 1: 159–164. 

O’Donnell, F. 2014. Fact Sheet: Estimating the Effect of Forest Restoration on Water Resources in 

Northern Arizona. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University. 2 pp. 

Omni, P., and E. Martinson. 2002. Effect of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Joint Fire Sciences 

Program Report. 

Ouren, D., C. Haas, C. Melcher, S. Stewart, P. Ponds, N. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, T. and Z. 

Bowen. 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, Extensive 

Bibliographies and Internet Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-

1353. 225 pp. [online] http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/22021/22021.pdf

Pagel, J., D. Whittington, and G. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle technical guidance: inventory and 

monitoring protocols; and other recommendations in support of golden eagle management 

and permit issuance. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1990. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 

Office.

Pavek, D.S. 1993. Picea pungens. In: Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available online at: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/picpun/all.html [Accessed June 1, 2017]. 

Potyondy, J.P. and others. May 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. A Framework for Assessing 

and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition USDA Forest Service report. FS-977. 34 pp. 

Potyondy, J.P. and T.W. Geier. 2010. Updated July 2011. Watershed Condition Classification 

Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service report. FS-978. 41 pp. 

Priest, S.S., W.A. Duffield, K. Malis-Clark,. J.W. Hendley II,; and P.H Stauffer. 2001. The San 

Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 017-01. 6 pp. 

Priest, S.S., W.A. Duffield, N.R. Riggs, B. Poturalski, and K. Malis-Clark. 2002. Red Mountain – A 

Spectacular and Unusual Cinder cone in Northern Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 024-02. 4 pp.4 pp. 

Quinn, M. and G. Chernoff. 2010. Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects. A 

Literature Review for Parks Canada – National Office (Visitor Experience Branch) Final 

Report, February 2010. Miistakis Institute. Faculty of Environmental Design – University of 

Calgary. 45 pp.

Rabe, M.J., T. E. Morrell, H. Green, J. C. deVos, Jr., and C. R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of 

Ponderosa Pine Snag Roosts Used by Reproductive Bats in Northern Arizona. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 612-621 

Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation (H. 

Synge, Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

803

Reveal, James L. Eriogonum jonesii. 2005. In Flora of North America. Volume 5. Oxford University 

Press, New York, N.Y. Page 260. 

Reynolds, R., R. Graham, and M. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, Colorado: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp. 

Reynolds, R.T., A.J. Sánchez Meador, J.A. Youtz, T. Nicolet, M.S. Matonis, P.L. Jackson, D. G. 

DeLorenzo, and A.D. Graves. 2013. Restoring composition and structure in Southwestern 

frequent-fire forests: a science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 

Reynolds, R.T., J.S. Lambert, C.H. Flather, G.C. White, B.J. Bird, L. Scott Baggett, C. Lambert, and 

S. Bayard de Volo. 2017. Long-Term Demography of the Northern Goshawk in a Variable 

Environment. Wildlife Monographs 197:1-40. 

Rhodes, J. 2007. Watershed impacts of forest treatments to reduce fuels and modify fire behavior. 

Prepared for: Pacific Rivers Council. Eugene, OR. 

Ribe, R. 1989. The Aesthetic of Forestry: What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught Us? 

Environmental Management, 13(1). [online] 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4x5132735646770/fulltext.pdf. 

Richardson, C.T, and C.K. Miller. 1999. Recommendations for Protecting Raptors from Human 

Disturbance: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-638. 

Riggs, N. and W. Duffield. 2008. Record of complex scoria cone eruptive activity at Red Mountain, 

Arizona, USA and implications for monogenetic mafic volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology 

and Geothermal Research, 178(4): 763-776. 

Rinne, J. 2004. Forest and Fishes: Effects of flows and foreigners on southwestern native fishes. 

Paper presented at the forest Land - Fish Conference II - Ecosystem Stewardship through 

Collaboration, Edmonton, Alberta.

Rodrigue, J. 2011. Geography of Transport Systems, Chapter 8 Application 1. Available online at 

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/appl8en/ch8a1en.html. Accessed September 22, 

2011. 

Roedenbeck, I.A., L. Fahrig, C.S. Findlay, J.E. Houlahan, J.A.G. Jaeger, N. Klar, S. Kramer-Schadt, 

E.A. van der Grift. 2007. The Rauischholzhausen Agenda for Road Ecology. Ecology and 

Society 12(1): 11-32. 

Romme, W., M. Floyd, and D. Hanna. 2009. Historical Range of Variability and Current Landscape 

Conditions Analysis: South Central Highlands Section, Southwestern Colorado, 

Northwestern New Mexico. Colorado State University, Colorado Forest Restoration 

Institute. pp. 1-256. 

Roper A.S.W. 2004. Outdoor recreation in America 2003: Recreation’s benefits to society challenged 

by trends. Recreation Roundtable. 22 ppp. Available online at: 

www.funoutdoors.com/files/ROPER%20REPORT%202004_0.pdf
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

804

Rost, G.R. 1975. Response of deer and elk to roads. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 51 pp. 

Ruyle, G., and P. Ogden. 1993. What is an A.U.M? [online] 

http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/rmg/1%20rangelandmanagement/1%20aum93.pdf

Ryan, R. 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. 58 pp. 

Sadoti, G. 2012. Nesting Ecology of Common Black-Hawks in Relation to Landscape Features. 

Journal of Raptor Research 46(3): 296-303. 

Santucci, V.L., and V.L. Santucci Jr. 1999. An inventory of PR from Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, Arizona. National Park Service Paleontological Research, 4, 118-120. 

Satterthwaite, W.H., E.S. Menges, and P.F. Quintana-Ascencio. 2002. Assessing scrub buckwheat 

population viability in relation to fire using multiple modeling techniques. Ecological 

Applications 12 (6), pp. 1672-1687. 

Schmidt, K., J. Menakis, C. Hardy, W. Hann, W., and D. Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale 

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41 pp. 

Schneider, I.E. and T. Schoenecker. 2006. All-terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic impact and 

consumer profile. University of Minnesota Tourism Center.

Schussman, H. 2006. Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition Modeling of Historical 

and Current Landscape Conditions for Semi-desert Grassland of the Southwestern U.S. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, 

Tucson, AZ. 53 pp. 

Schussman, H., and E. Smith. 2006. Historical Range of Variation for Potential Natural Vegetation 

Types of the Southwest. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by 

The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 11 pp. 

Scott, V. 1978. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snags used by cavity-nesting birds in Arizona. 

Journal of Forestry, 76, pp. 26-28. 

Seamans, M., R. Gutierres, C. May, and M. Peery. 1999. Demography of two Mexican spotted owl 

populations. Conservation Biology 13(4), 744-754. 

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J. Russell. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. USDA 

Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute. 

Shepperd, W., L. Asherin, and C. Edminster. 2002. Using individual tree selection silviculture to 

restore northern goshawk habitat: lessons from a southwestern study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-546. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 1-9. 

Solvesky, B.G. and C.L. Chambers. 2008. Roosts of Allen’s Lappet-Browed Bat in Northern 

Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 677-682. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

805

Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, B. Miller, and D.L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly Interacting Species: 

Conservation Policy, Management, and Ethics. BioScience 55(2): 168-176. 

Springer, A.E., M.A. Amentt, T.E. Kolb, and R.M. Mullen. 2006. Evapotranspiration of two 

vegetation communities in a high elevation riparian meadow at Hart Prairie, Arizona. Water 

Resources Research, Vol. 42, W03412, doi:10.1029/2004WR003863, 2006. 

Springer, J.D., M.L. Daniels, and M. Nazaire. 2009. Field Guide to Forest and Mountain Plants of 

Northern Arizona. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

AZ. 649 pages 

Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk. The Birds of North America. No. 298. 31 

pp. 

Steidl, R.F. and B.F. Powell. 2006. Assessing the Effects of Human Activities on Wildlife. The 

George Wright Forum 23(2): 50-58. 

Stevens, L., and J. Ledbetter. 2012. A Guidebook to the Rare Invertebrates of the Coconino National 

Forest Region: Draft Final Report. Museum of Northern Arizona. 

Stoddard, M.T., C.M. McGlone, P.Z. Fulé, D.C. Laughlin, and M.L. Daniels. 2011. Native Plants 

Dominate Understory Vegetation Following Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Treatments. 

Western North American Naturalist 71(2): 206–214. 

Stokowski, P., and C. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: An 

Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. University of Vermont: School of 

Natural Resources. Burlington, VT. 

Sullivan, M., and M. Richardson. 1993. Functions and Values of the Verde River Riparian Ecosystem 

and an Assessment of Adverse Impacts to These Resources. Report prepared for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, California. USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office. Phoenix, AZ. 364 pp. 

Szaro, R., and R. Balda. 1982. Selection and monitoring of avian indicator species: an example from 

a ponderosa pine forest in the southwest. General Tech. Rep. RM-89. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Taylor, J., and T. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public Education and Perception. Journal of 

Forestry, 82(6): 361-365. 

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2006. Southwest Forest Assessment Project: Historical range of 

variation and state and transition modeling of historical and current landscape conditions for 

potential natural vegetation types of the southwestern U.S. The Nature Conservancy 

technical report available online at 

http://azconservation.org/projects/southwest_forest_assessment, November 2013. TNC 

Arizona Chapter, Tucson, AZ.

Tollefson, J. 2006. Acer grandidentatum. In: Fire Effects Information System, USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Retrieved online 

February 6, 2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

806

Townsend, Patricia A. and Douglas J. Levey. 2005. An Experimental Test of Whether Habitat 

Corridors Affect Pollen Transfer. Ecology Vol 86(2). Pp 466-475. 

Triepke, F., B. Higgins, R. Weisz, J. 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. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office. 31 

pp. 

Triepke, F.J., M.M. Wahlberg,, D.C. Cress, and R.L. Benton. 2013. RMAP – Regional Riparian 

Mapping Project. USDA Forest Service project report available online 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis/gisdata/rmap_project_report_SEPT_2013.pdf, Southwestern 

Region, Albuquerque, NM. 53 pp. 

Tuttle, M.D. and D.E. Stevenson. 1977. An Analysis of Migration as a Mortality Factor in the Gray 

Bat Based on Public Recoveries of Banded Bats. The American Midland Naturalist 97(1): 

235-240. 

Ulrick, G. E., G.H. Billingsley, R. Hereford, E.W. Wolfe, L.D. Nealey, and R. L. Sutton 1984. 

Geologic Map Showing Structure and Uranium Deposits of the Flagstaff 1 degree by 

2 degree Quadrangle, Arizona. 1 p. http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_9245.htm 

Underwood, J. 2007. Interagency Management Plan for Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs in Arizona. 

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011a. Local Area Personal Income, Table CA05. Retrieved May 

10, 2011 from http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1#reqid=70&step=1 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011b. Local Area Unemployment. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from 

http://www.bls.gov/lau

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. American FactFinder. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Population Estimates Program. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates. Retrieved May 10, 

2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder2. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Code, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 

U.S. Code, 16 U.S.C. 4301-4309 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. 

U.S. Code 16 470aaa. Public law 111-11, March 30, 2009. Subtitle D Paleontological Resources 

Preservation, pp. 1172-1177. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

807

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [No date]. Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. 

USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/. 

Forest Service Manual 2300, Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, 

Chapter 2350, Trail, River and similar Recreation Opportunities, 2356 Cave 

Management, 2009, November 4, 13 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2311, ROS User Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Forest Service. 1982a. ROS Users Guide (FSM 2311). Recreation, Heritage, and 

Wilderness Resources. Washington, DC. 38 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2700, Special Uses Management, Chapter 2760 Withdrawals, 1990, 

June 1, 19 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2700, Special Uses Management, Chapter 2760 Withdrawals, 1986, 

R-1 supplement 114. 3 ppp 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2880, Geologic 

Resources, Hazards and Services, 2008, September 25, 67 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2810 Mining Claims, 2007, 

April 4, 42 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2820, Mineral Leases, 1994, 

March 17, 32 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2830, Mineral Reservations 

and Outstanding Mineral Rights, 1990, June 1, 6 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2840, Reclamation, 1990, June 

1, 7 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2850, Mineral Materials, 1990, 

June 1, 8 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800 Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2860, Mineral Prospecting and 

Collecting, 1996, October 10, 6 pp. 

Forest Service Manual 2800 Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2880, Geologic Resources, 

Hazards and Services, 2008, September 25, 67 pp. 

Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, 1990, 

December 3, 41 pp. 

Forest Service Handbook 2809.15, Minerals and Geology Handbook, Chapter 10 Surface Use 

Determinations, 2006, August 31, 15 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service. 1974. Brown et al. RM-129, Opportunities 

for Increasing Water Yields and Other Multiple Use Values on Ponderosa Pine Forest Lands. 

Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 36 pp. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

808

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service. 1977. The visual management system. 

Agricultural Handbook. National forest landscape management, Volume 2. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office: 462. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1982a. ROS Users Guide (FSM 2311). 

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources. Washington, D.C. 38 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1982b. Coconino National Forest Analysis 

of the Management Situation. Flagstaff, Arizona: Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service. 1984. Alpine Tundra Interim Management 

Plan for Senecio franciscanus. Unpublished document on file at Coconino National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office. Flagstaff, AZ: Flagstaff and Elden Ranger District, Coconino National 

Forest. 13 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1986. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Book. 

U.S .Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (as amended). 1987a. Coconino National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 486 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1987b. Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Coconino National Forest Plan. Flagstaff, Arizona: Coconino National Forest. U.S. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1989. Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation 

System. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide. 

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources. Washington, D.C. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5139544.pdf. 

U.S .Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1992. Coconino National Forest Cave 

Resource Management Guide. 18 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1992a. Coconino National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Northern goshawk recommendations. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino 

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1992b. Forest Plan Decision Memo for 

Cave Management Goals and Standards/Guidelines, Forest Plan Amendment 9. Flagstaff, 

AZ: Coconino National Forest. 7 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in 

Forests of the Rocky Mountains. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1995a. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook 

for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 701. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1995b. Forest Rock Pit Inventory. 

Coconino National Forest. 8 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1995c. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey for 

the Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

809

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1996a. Record of Decision for Amendment 

of Forest Plans, Arizona and New Mexico. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Environmental Justice Departmental Regulation. 

Washington, DC: Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1998. Mint Springs Environmental 

Assessment for the Offering of Oil and Gas Leasing. 21 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of 

Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities 

and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and 

Upper Columbia River Basin DEIS. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion 

Research Laboratory, Moscow, ID. WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) Interface for Predicting 

Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery, Technical Documentation website at 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2002a. National Survey on Recreation and 

the Environment (NSRE): 2000−2002. The Interagency National Survey Consortium. 

Coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics 

Trends Research Group, Athens, GA and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Associated Data available online at: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsre2.html and 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/NSRE200562303.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2002b. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: 

Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, vol. 5. December 2002. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2002c. Management Indicator Status 

Report for the Coconino National Forest. Working Draft, July 1, 2002. Coconino National 

Forest, Flagstaff AZ. 94 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2003a. Final ROS Mapping Protocol. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Agricultural Research Service, National Soil 

Erosion Research Laboratory. Moscow, ID. Water Erosion Prediction Project website at 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2003b. First Amended Programmatic 

Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico 

Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and 

Oklahoma and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2004a. Anderson Mesa Landscape Scale 

Assessment Final Report. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2004b. The Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive River Management Plan. Flagstaff, Prescott, and Phoenix AZ: Coconino, 

Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

810

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2004c. Anderson Mesa Landscape Scale 

Assessment Vegetation Group Specialist Report. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2004d. Biological assessment for the 

continued implementation of the land and resource management plans for the eleven 

National Forests and National Grasslands of the Southwestern Region. Final April 8, 2004. 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2005a. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds. Flagstaff, Williams, and 

Prescott, AZ: Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2006. Environmental Assessment: Final 

East Clear Creek Watershed Health Improvement Project. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National 

Forest. 272 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2007. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 

FY 2007–2012. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2008a. Economic and Social Sustainability 

Assessment (ESSA). Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2008b. Southwestern Regional Office, 

Cordts, Robert. December 16, 2008. File Code 2820-3. Geothermal Leasing Nomination. 

2 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2009a. Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2009b. Ecological Sustainability Analysis 

of the Coconino NF: An Evaluation of Terrestrial Ecosystems (Ecological Units, Soil 

Composition, Structure and Processes) that Affect Ecosystem Diversity and Contribute to 

Ecological Sustainability. Prepared by R. Steinke. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 

20 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2009c. Ecological Sustainability Analysis 

of the Coconino National Forest. An Evaluation of Water Resource Attributes Characteristics 

and their Contribution in Ecosystem Diversity and Ecological Sustainability Southwestern 

Region. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 87 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2010a. Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS). Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 73 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2010e. Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act Payments. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2010f. Southwestern Region Climate 

Change Trends and Forest Planning, A Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan 

Revisions for Southwestern National Forests and National Grasslands. 46 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

811

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2010g. Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation for the Travel Management Rule on the Coconino National Forest. November 12, 

2010. Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011a National Roadmap for Responding 

to Climate Change. 30 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011b. Record of Decision for Nationwide 

Aerial Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest System Land. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011c. Diameter Limits and Forest 

Restoration: Evaluation of a 16" Diameter Cap on Achieving Forest Desired Conditions. 

Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011d. Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Cave Research Foundation and the USDA Forest Service. 7 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011e. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement: Travel Management on the Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino 

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011f. Biological Assessment for Reinitiation of Consultation on the Continued Implementation of the Land and Resource 

Management Plans for the Eleven National Forests and National Grasslands of the 

Southwestern Region Unpublished report. April 6, 2011. Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM. 545 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011g. Record of Decision Travel 

Management Plan. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011h. Responding to Climate Change in 

National Forests: A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options. 109 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service 2011i. Proposed Action: Rock Pit 

Development on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. 8 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011j. Forest Service ACtivity Tracking 

System (FACTS) - The Forest Service Activity Tracking System is an activity tracking 

system for all levels of the Forest Service. Coconino National Forest Vegetation Treatment 

Activities queried from 1987-2010. Query completed on April 22, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011k. Letter from the forest Supervisor to 

Francisco Valenzuela, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources: Coconino 

National Forest Cave Management Program leader and Listing of Significant Caves. May 3, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011l. Letter from the Regional Forester to 

Forest Supervisors and District Rangers: White Nose Syndrome Handbook. March 25, 2011. 

2 pp. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

812

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2011m. Biological Assessment and 

Evaluation Amendment for the Travel Management Rule on the Coconino National Forest. 

May 13, 2011. Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2012. Analysis of Biological and 

Ecological Effects of Snowmaking on the Slopes of Arizona Snowbowl(ASB) Ski Area 

Facilities Improvement Project on San Francisco Peaks ragwort (Packera franciscana). 

(Greene) Weber and Love. Supplemental Biological Assessment. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino 

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2012a. Kaibab and Coconino National 

Forests Official Policy on Forest Products for Traditional and Cultural Purposes. April 1, 

2012. Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona. 5 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2013. Management Indicator Status Report 

for the Coconino National Forest. Version 2, January 28, 2013. Coconino National Forest, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 118 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2014a. Coconino National Forest Motor 

Vehicle Use Map. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2014b. Windmill West Biological 

Assessment. Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2015a. Forest Insect and Disease 

Conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2013. Forest Health PR-R3-16-12 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2015b. Scenery Management System 

Inventory Report: Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. 

Nicole Hill unpublished. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2015c. Caves, Karst, Cliffs, Talus Slopes 

Specialist Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National 

Forest. 102 pages. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2015d. Research Natural Areas Evaluation. 

Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest. 18 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016a. Soils Specialist Report. Forest Plan 

Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 102 pages. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016b. Riparian Specialist Report, Forest 

Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 109 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016c. Vegetation and Fire Specialist 

Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016d. Aquatics Species Specialist Report. 

Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),Forest Service. 2016e. Potential Wilderness Area 

Evaluation Report and Wilderness Need Evaluation. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, 

Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

813

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016f. Recreation and Special Areas 

Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016g. Socioeconomic Resource Report

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016h. Water Quality, Quantity and 

Watershed Specialist Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino 

National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016i. Geology Resource Specialist Report. 

Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2016j. Coconino Kaibab Rock Pit Final 

Environmental Assessment. 178 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016k. Arizona Cliffrose Monitoring, Lime 

Kiln Trail Results. Southwestern Region. Cocoino National Forest. 4 pages.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016l. Landscape Character Descriptions: 

Coconino National Forest. Nicole Hill and Matt Boisseau, unpublished. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2016m. 2005 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring for Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2016n. 2010 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring for Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2016o. Mineral Resources Specialist 

Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2017a. Recreation Sites List. Natural 

Resource Manager database. Coconino National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2017b. Trail Miles by Condition Class and 

Trail Use Design. Natural Resource Manager database. Coconino National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2017c. Biological Assessment. Forest Plan 

Revision FEIS, Southwestern Region. Coconino National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) and San Dimas 

Tech Center. 2000. WEPP Technical Documentation online at 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2010. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Retrieved June 2, 2011 

from http://www.doi.gov/pilt

U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management. 2008a. Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United 

States. 102 pp. 

U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management. 2008b. Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. Volume I, 600 pp. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

814

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1982a. 

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

103 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1982b. 

Bald eagle recovery plan (southwestern population). Albuquerque, NM. 65 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. 

Final Rule to Determine San Francisco Peaks groundsel to be a Threatened Species and 

Determination of its Critical Habitat. Federal Register. Vol. 48 No. 226. November 22, 1983, 

pp. 52743-46. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Federal%20Registers/SanFran_Groun

dsel.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to Determine Cowania 

Subintegra (Arizona Cliffrose) to be an Endangered Species. Final rule. Federal Register 49, 

104, 22326-35034-22329. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987a. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to Determine Lepidomeda 

vittata (Little Colorado Spinedace) to be a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Final 

rule. Federal Register 52, 179, 35034-35040. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987b. 

San Francisco Peaks Groundsel (Senecio franciscanus) Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ: 

Ecological Services State Office. 39 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the 

Colorado River endangered fishes: razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, 

and bonytail chub. Final rule. Federal Register 59, 54, 13374-13400. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995a. 

Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Ecological 

Services State Office. 90 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995b. 

Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. 

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern 

Arizona (Final Rule). [online] http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/CA_Condor.htm

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998a. 

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Denver: CO. 154 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998b 

Final Rule. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray 

Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. 21 pp. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

815

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the Western Continental United States. 

Notice of a 12-month petition finding. Federal Register 66(143): 38611-38626. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

(Rana chiricahuensis); Final Rule (67 FR 40790) 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement 

to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6). Denver, CO. 111 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005a. 

Programmatic biological and conference opinion: the continued implementation of the Land 

and Resource Management Plans for the Eleven National Forests and National Grasslands of 

the Southwestern Region. Regional Office, Region 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Consultation 2-22-03-F-366. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005b. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing Gila chub as endangered with critical 

habitat; Final rule. 50 CFR Part 17; Federal Register 70 (211): 66664-66721. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Gila Trout 

(Oncorhynchus gilae) From Endangered to Threateed; Special Rule for Gila Trout in New 

Mexico and Arizona. Final Rule. Federal Register 71(137): 40657-40674. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Final Recovery Plan.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the 

spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis); Final Rule. Federal 

Register 72, 54, 13356-13422. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007c. 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 18 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. 

Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Online version 

available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. 

San Francisco Peaks Ragwort (Packera franciscana), 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. 17 pp.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

816

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. 

Draft Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM, USA. 376 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. 

Biological Opinion: Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of 

Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands. [online] 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/ww

w/nepa/71615_FSPLT2_066530.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011c. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register 76, 

157,50542-50629. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011d. 

Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011e. 

Letter regarding Reinititation of Consultation for the Travel Management Rule for the 

Coconino National Forest. September 28, 2011. Arizona Ecological Services, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011f. 

Letter regarding Reinititation of Consultation for the Travel Management Rule for the 

Coconino National Forest. October 20, 2011. Arizona Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat 

for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 54, March 20, 

2012. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. 

Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 2, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 

413 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012c. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Endangered status and designations of 

critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. Federal Register 77(36):10810-10932. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012d. 

Biological and Conference Opinion: the Continued Implementation of the Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest of the Southwestern Region. 

March 30, 2012. Arizona Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013a. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 2, January 3, 

2013. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

817

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013b. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Western 

Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Proposed 

Rule. Oct. 3, 2013. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 192: 61622-61666. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination for the Western Distinct 

Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Final Rule. 

Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 192, October 3, 2014. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. 

Draft Recovery Plan for the Gila Chub (Gila intermedia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 118 pp. + Appendices A-C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Mexican Wolf 

and Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf. Final 

rules. Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 11, 2488-2512, January 16, 2015. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017a. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened Species Status for the Headwater 

Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment; Proposed rule; withdrawal. 50 CFR 

Part 17; Federal Register 82 (66): 16981-16988. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017b. 

Biological and Conference Opinion: Forest Plan Revision. September 21, 2017. Arizona 

Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). 1995. Railroad Logging on the 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, 1887-1966. National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form, pp. 1-50. 

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS). 2007. 2006 Annual Performance and 

Progress Report: Air Quality in National Parks. Prepared by Air Services Division, National 

Park Service. June 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/index.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) website. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed 

March 26, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. Federal Implementation Plan Definitions. 

Retrieved October 6, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/phoenixpm/define.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. Glossary for Mobile Source Emissions. Retrieved 

October 6, 2011 from http://systechportal.com/documents/def_pollution.htm

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. U.S. Geological Survey mineral databases; MRDS and 

MAS/MILS. DS. 52. McFaul, E.J.; Mason, G.T; Ferguson, W.B.; Lipin, B.R.. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

818

U.S. Geological Survery (USGS) Canyonlands Research Station. 2006. http://www.soilcrust.org. SW 

Biological Science Center. Moab, UT. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Mountain Lions of the Flagstaff Uplands, 2003–2006 

Progress Report. Open-File Report 2007-1062. Mattson, D.J., ed. SW Biological Science 

Center. 68 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. Golden Eagle fatalities and the continental-scale 

consequences of local wind-energy generation. Conservation Biology. 31(2): 406-415. 

Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, H.G. Shaw, B.A. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey. 1986a. 

Reactions of Mountain Lions to Logging and Human Activity. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 50(1): 95-102. 

Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, and H.G. Shaw. 1986b. Use of Road Track Counts as Indices of 

Mountain Lion Presence. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 50(1): 102-109. 

Wahlberg, M.M., F.J. Triepke, W.A. Robbie, S.H. Strenger, D. Vandendriesche, E.H. Muldavin, and 

J.R. Malusa. 2014. Ecological Response Units of the southwestern United States. USDA 

Forest Service technical report available online at: 

http://fsweb.r3.fs.fed.us/eap/nfma/assessments. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. 201 pp. 

Weir, G.W., S. Beard, and C.E. Ellis. 1983. Mineral Resource Potential Map of the Fossil Springs 

Roadless Area, Yavapai, Fila and Coconino Counties, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF-1568-A. Pamphlet, 12 p. and 1 Map Sheet. 

Weir, G.W. and S. Beard. 1984. Geologic Map of the Fossil Springs Roadless Area, Yavapai, Gila 

and Coconino Counties, Arizona. Map MF1568-C. 1 sheet. 

Weir, G.W. and S. Beard. 1997. Preliminary Map of Strawberry Quadrangle, Yavapai, Gila and 

Coconino Counties, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 94-265 Map 1 sheet. 

Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, and O.E. Maughan. 1996. 

Effects of simulated jet aircraft noise on heart rate and behavior of desert ungulates. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 60(1):52-61. 

Weisz, R., D. Vandendriesche, M. Moeur, M. Boehning, L. Wadleigh, J. Triepke, M. White, C. 

Nelson, J. Palmer, J. Youtz, B. Higgins, T. Nicolet, P. Bostwick, D. Mindar, M. Pitts, M. 

Manthei, and W. Robbie. 2011. Calibrating State and Transition Models with FVS: A Case 

Study. USDA Forest Service. pp. 1–29

Welty, J.W. 1989. Additions to Bibliographies for Metallic Mineral Districts in Arizona, Arizona 

Geological Survey, Open-File Report 89-9, 28 pp. 

White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks Exposed to Controlled 

Disturbance. The Condor. 87(1): 14-22. 

Wilcox, B.A. and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on 

Extinction. The American Naturalist. 125(6): 879-887. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

819

Wisdom, M.J, A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-road 

Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Session Six of the Transactions of the 69th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 24 pp.

Wisdom, M.J. and L.J. Bates. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and human 

access. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2085-2093. 

Wolfe, E.W. and T.D. Light. 1984, Strawberry Crater Roadless Area, Arizona, in Marsh, S. P., 

Kropschot, S. J., and Dickinson, R. G., Wilderness mineral potential: Assessment of mineral 

respurce potential in U.S. Forest Service lands studied 1964-1984: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1300, p. 110-112. 

Yavapai County. Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan. 2012. 114 pp. 

http://www.yavapai.us/devserv/files/2012/03/YavapaiCountyComprehensivePlan.pdf

Youtz, J. and D. Vandendriesche. 2011. National Forest Planning and Sustained Yield of the Timber 

Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for Forest Land and Resource 

Management Planning. USDA Forest Service. p. 1-32. 

Youtz, J.A. and D. Vandendriesche. 2012. White paper titled: National Forest Planning and Sustained 

Yield of the Timber Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for Forest Land and 

Resource Management Planning. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, 

NM, and Washington Office Forest Management Service Center. 32 pp.

Zuberogoitia, I., J. Zabala, J.E. Marinez, J.A. Gonzalez-Oreja and P. Lopez-Lopez. 2014. Effective 

conservation measures to mitigate the impact of human disturbances on the endangered 

Egyptian vulture. Animal Conservation 17: 410-418. The Zoological Society of London. 

. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

821

Index

Agave species, 457–62 

Allen’s lappet-browed bat, 586–93 

Alpine Tundra, 163–69 

American peregrine falcons, 470–77 

Analysis, 21–27 

Aquatic and riparian invertebrates, 463–70

Arizona cliffrose, 50–55 

Arizona phlox, 594–603 

Arizona sneezeweed, 603–10 

Arizona sunflower, 610–14 

Aspen, 120–26 

Assumptions, 22

At-risk species, 50–55

Bald eagle, 492–504 

Beaver, 237–39

Black dropseed, 614–20 

Black-footed ferret, 409 

California condor, 277–85 

California floater, 621

Caves, 216–20 

Chiricahua leopard frog (CLF), 255–77

Cliff and cave-dwelling wildlife, 470–77 

Cliffs, 211–16 

Coarse Filter

habitat findings, 221–28

species findings, 229–53

Colorado pikeminnow, 342–49 

Common black hawk, 621–27 

Connectivity, habitat, 27–33

Cumulative effects, 756–63 

American Indian Tribes, 757

Arizona State agencies, 760–62

Camp Navajo, 758

Fish and Wildlife Service, 758

Forest Service, 759

Local government, 762

National Park Service, 757

Desert Communities, 56–63

Desert plants, 481–92 

Disturbance

motor vehicle, 33–42

plants, 42–46

Disturbed (Tusayan) rabbitbrush, 627–32 

Eagles, 492–504 

Ferruginous hawk, 235–37

Fine Filter

analysis, 26

introduction, 254

Fish, 504–12 

Flagstaff pennyroyal, 632–38 

F-Ranks, 2 

Frogs and toads, 512–25

Gila chub, 349–59 

Gila topminnow, 359–66 

Gila trout, 367–74 

Golden eagle, 492–504 

Great Basin Grassland, 78–84 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, 638–43 

Habitat

abundance, 22

connectivity, 27–33

Likelihood of limitation, 24–25

High-elevation plants, 525–32 

High-elevation species, 239–47 

Interdisciplinary team members, 765

Interior Chaparral, 63–69 

Invasive species, 46–50 

Invertebrates, aquatic and riparian, 463–70 

Likelihood of habitat limitation variable, 

24–25 

Little Colorado spinedace, 375–84 

Loach minnow, 384–92 

MacDougal’s aletes, 643–49

Management effect, 25–26 

Management indicator species, 709–40 

Mexican spotted owl, 734–40
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

822

Pronghorn, 709–22

Pygmy nuthatch, 722–33

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil, 650–55 

Mexican gray wolf, 410–20

Mexican spotted owl, 285–313, 734–40

Migratory birds, 740–56 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, 138–46 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, 147–54

Mogollon thistle, 655–58

Montane/Subalpine Grassland, 84–91 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, 658–64 

Narrow-headed gartersnake, 439–47 

Navajo Mogollon vole, 247–53 

Non-native species, 46–50 

Northern goshawk, 665–76 

Northern Mexican gartersnake, 447–55 

Oak Creek triteleia, 677

Off-forest aquatic species, 550–55 

Other species, 14–20

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, 470–77 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, 100–110 

Pinyon Juniper plants, 532–42 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass, 92–100 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland, 110–20 

Plants

cliffs and rocky outcrop, 477–81

desert, 481–92

high-elevation, 525–32

Pinyon Juniper, 532–42

Ponderosa Pine, 542–49

riparian, 556–67

Verde Formation, 571–78

volcanic soil, 579–85

wetland, 567–71

Ponderosa Pine, 126–38 

Ponderosa Pine plants, 542–49 

Pronghorn, 684–89, 709–22

Pygmy nuthatch, 722–33 

Razorback sucker, 393–400 

Riparian forest types, 169–88 

Riparian plants, 556–67

Rocky Outcrops, 211–16 

Rusby’s milkvetch, 689–96 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort, 430–39 

Semi-desert Grassland, 69–78 

Sensitive and other species

Ponderosa Pine plants, 542–49

riparian plants, 556–67

Verde Formation plants, 571–78

volcanic soil plants, 579–85

wetland plants, 567–71

Sensitive and Other species

agave species, 457–62

Aquatic and Riparian Invertebrates, 457–

62

Cliff and cave-dwelling wildlife, 470–77

Cliffs and rocky outcrop plants, 477–81

Desert plants, 481–92

eagles, 492–504

fish, 504–12

frogs and toads, 512–25

High-elevation plants, 525–32

Off-forest aquatic species, 550–55

Pinyon Juniper plants, 532

Sensitive species, 2–14 

Southwestern myotis, 696 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL), 

313–26 

Species

at-risk, 50–55

federally listed, 2–7 

Invasive, 46–50

list, 1

non-native, 46–50

other, 14–20

sensitive, 2–14
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

References

Coconino National Forest

823

viability, 1–27

Spikedace, 400–409

Spotted bat, 470–77 

Springs, 196–203 

Spruce-Fir, 155–63 

Streamcourses, 203–11

Talus Slopes, 211–16 

Threatened and endangered fish

Colorado pikeminnow, 342–49

Gila chub, 349–59

Gila Topminnow, 359–66

Gila trout, 367–74

Little Colorado spinedace, 375–84

Loach minnow, 384–92

Razorback sucker, 393–400

Spikedace, 400–409

Threatened and endangered mammals

Black-footed ferret, 409

Mexican gray wolf, 410–20

Threatened and endangered plants

Arizona cliffrose, 420–30

San Francisco Peaks ragwort, 430–39

Threatened and endangered reptiles

Narrow-headed gartersnake, 439–47

Northern Mexican gartersnake, 447–55

Threatened and endangered species

California condor, 277–85

Chiricahua leopard frog, 255–77

Mexican spotted owl, 285–313

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL), 

313–26

Western yellow-billed cuckoo, 326–41

Yuma Ridgway’s rail, 341

Verde Formation, 56–63, 69–78 

Verde Formation plants, 571–78 

Viability effectiveness, 26

Volcanic soil plants, 579–85

Western burrowing owl, 230–34 

Western red bat, 702 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo, 326–41 

Wetland plants, 567–71 

Wetlands, 189–95 

Yuma Ridgway’s rail (YRR), 341