United States Department of Agriculture

Coconino National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume IIa. Chapter 3: Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

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 IIa

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 IIa. Chapter 3 (continued): Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

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 IIa

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 IIa. Chapter 3 (continued): Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

Table of Contents

Wildlife, Fish, and Plants ............................................................................................................ 1

Species Viability ...................................................................................................................... 1

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics .................................................................................... 27

Coarse Filter: Habitat ............................................................................................................ 55

Coarse Filter Habitat Findings ............................................................................................. 221

Coarse Filter Species Findings ............................................................................................ 229

Fine Filter: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 254

Fine Filter: Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ 254

List of Tables

Table 1. Key information for primary habitat associations ............................................................. 2

Table 2. Description of F-Ranks ..................................................................................................... 2

Table 3. Threatened and endangered species with their habitats and threats .................................. 4

Table 4. Southwestern Region sensitive species with their habitats and threats ............................. 8

Table 5. Other forest planning species with their habitats and threats .......................................... 14

Table 6. Values used to categorize projected abundance of each habitat element ........................ 23

Table 7. Values used to categorize distribution and quality of habitat and habitat elements ........ 24

Table 8. Likelihood that habitat abundance and habitat quality will be a limiting factor to 

associated species .................................................................................................................. 24

Table 9. Likelihood that an individual species would be limited by its habitat ............................ 25

Table 10. Description of relative management effect rating ......................................................... 26

Table 11. Potential effect of roads or traffic disturbance on different species groups .................. 35

Table 12. Summary of coarse filter analyses for Desert Communities ERU ................................ 57

Table 13. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Interior Chaparral ERU ..................................... 64

Table 14. Summary of coarse filter analyses for Semi-desert Grassland ERU ............................. 72

Table 15. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Great Basin Grassland ERU .............................. 79

Table 16. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU.................. 86

Table 17. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper with Grass ................................ 94

Table 18. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub by alternative

 ............................................................................................................................................. 102

Table 19. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper Woodland by alternative ........ 112

Table 20. Summary of coarse filter analysis for aspen ................................................................ 122

Table 21. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Ponderosa Pine ERU ....................................... 128

Table 22. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU ......... 140

Table 23. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU ....... 148

Table 24. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Spruce-Fir ERU ............................................... 157

Table 25. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Alpine Tundra ERU ........................................ 164

Table 26. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest type ...... 172

Table 27. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest type

 ............................................................................................................................................. 173
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

iv

Table 28. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Montane Willow Riparian Forest type ............ 174

Table 29. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Wetlands .......................................................... 190

Table 30. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Springs ............................................................ 197

Table 31. Summary of coarse filter analysis for perennial streamcourses .................................. 205

Table 32. Summary of coarse filter analysis for ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses ...... 207

Table 33. Summary of the coarse filter analysis for Cliffs, Rocky Outcrops, and Talus Slopes. 212

Table 34. Summary of the coarse filter analysis for Caves ......................................................... 218

Table 35. Summary of coarse filter findings for terrestrial ERUs ............................................... 221

Table 36. Summary of coarse filter findings for riparian areas ................................................... 225

Table 37. Summary of coarse filter findings for geological resources ........................................ 228

Table 38. Summary for greater western mastiff bat and pinyon jays .......................................... 230

Table 39. Analysis summary for western burrowing owl............................................................ 231

Table 40. Analysis summary for ferruginous hawk and beaver .................................................. 236

Table 41. Analysis summary for high-elevation species ............................................................. 241

Table 42. Analysis summary for Navajo Mogollon vole ............................................................ 248

Table 43. Vole habitat in designated wilderness (acres) ............................................................. 249

Table 44. Acreages of aquatic/riparian and terrestrial ERUs within Chiricahua leopard frog 

management areas on the Coconino NF .............................................................................. 256

Table 45. Analysis summary for the Chiricahua leopard frog..................................................... 259

Table 46. Miles and percentage of riparian habitat by riparian condition and Chiricahua leopard 

frog management area ......................................................................................................... 269

Table 47. Chiricahua leopard frog (CLF) management area acres within proposed plan 

management areas ............................................................................................................... 273

Table 48. Recommended wilderness ........................................................................................... 275

Table 49. Mortality within the Southwest condor population from 1996 to 2011 ...................... 278

Table 50. Analysis summary for the California condor .............................................................. 279

Table 51. Mexican spotted owl PAC acreage, percent by ERU, and percent of total ERU acreage 

within PACs ........................................................................................................................ 286

Table 52. Estimated PAC and recovery habitat on the Coconino NF ......................................... 287

Table 53. Analysis summary for the Mexican spotted owl ......................................................... 288

Table 54. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within designated wilderness areas 

managed by the Coconino NF ............................................................................................. 297

Table 55. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within proposed plan management areas

 ............................................................................................................................................. 307

Table 56. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within recommended wilderness areas 

managed by Coconino NF ................................................................................................... 308

Table 57. Number and acreage of protected activity centers (PAC) within management areas . 310

Table 58. Analysis summary for the southwestern willow flycatcher ......................................... 315

Table 59. Yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical habitat units that include lands within the 

Coconino NF. Federal acres include lands on other forests. ............................................... 328

Table 60. Acres of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat by ERU within lands managed 

by the Coconino NF............................................................................................................. 328

Table 61. Analysis summary for the western yellow-billed cuckoo ........................................... 329

Table 62. Yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical habitat within management areas ................. 338

Table 63. Analysis summary for Colorado pikeminnow ............................................................. 343

Table 64. Analysis summary for Gila chub ................................................................................. 352

Table 65. Analysis summary for Gila topminnow ...................................................................... 360

Table 66. Analysis summary for Gila trout ................................................................................. 368

Table 67. Analysis summary for Little Colorado spinedace ....................................................... 377
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

v 

Table 68. Analysis summary for loach minnow .......................................................................... 385

Table 69. Analysis summary for razorback sucker ..................................................................... 394

Table 70. Analysis summary for spikedace ................................................................................. 402

Table 71. Analysis summary for the Mexican gray wolf ............................................................ 411

Table 72. Analysis summary for Arizona cliffrose ..................................................................... 422

Table 73. Analysis summary for San Francisco Peaks ragwort .................................................. 432

Table 74. Analysis summary for the narrow-headed gartersnake ............................................... 440

Table 75. Analysis summary for northern Mexican gartersnake ................................................. 448

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

1 

Wildlife, Fish, and Plants 

For more information on species resources, see the respective sections in other parts of the FEIS 

in chapter 3. 

Species Viability

The vegetative and species diversity found on the forest is largely unique in comparison to the 

surrounding landscape as it has 13 vegetation types, a wide elevation range (2,500 feet to 

12,000 feet), and different types of riparian areas in a largely arid southwestern landscape. 

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences to species that may 

result from the adoption of a revised land management plan for the Coconino NF. It provides a 

summary of species viability assessments and examines in detail consequences to federally listed 

and proposed species and critical habitat, Forest Service regionally sensitive species, migratory 

birds, eagles, and management indicator species. 

The National Forest Management Act regulations require that habitat is managed to support 

viable populations of all species within the planning area (1982 Planning Rule provisions at 36 

CFR 219). The focus of this evaluation is on the condition of the habitat provided on Coconino 

NF. Condition was represented by departure values or distribution of vegetative states as 

described in the sections on “Vegetation and Fire,” “Soil,” “Watersheds and Water,” and 

“Riparian Resources.” For planning purposes, a viable population is regarded as one that has the 

estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its continued existence 

is well distributed in the planning area.

Species List

A comprehensive list of species (‘forest planning species’) with potential viability concerns was 

collaboratively developed and compiled by the Coconino National Forest (USDA Forest Service 

2009c). The forest planning species list was subsequently modified based on more recent 

information (see Appendix C). NatureServe conservation status ranks and the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department’s State Wildlife Action Plan list were re-checked to see if any updates since 

2009 would result in changes to the list (AZGFD 2012). A summary of the State Wildlife Action 

Plan list review is located in the project record. Under an agreement with the forest, the Museum 

of Northern Arizona summarized new and hard-to-find invertebrate information from literature 

and experts in the field (Stevens and Ledbetter 2014). Changes in the Southwestern Region 

Sensitive Species list were also incorporated (USDA Forest Service 2013). After the DEIS was 

released in 2013, Coconino NF biologists provided additional site-specific information regarding 

species habitat relationships that resulted in changes in primary ERUs for individual species and 

adding ephemeral and intermittent riparian drainages as an important habitat element for certain 

amphibians and reptiles. 

The forest planning species in this report are comprised of federally listed species, species 

proposed for Federal listing, Regional Forester sensitive species, and other species. Other species 

hold no special regulatory status except as addressed for viability under the National Forest 

Management Act. Table 1 lists the acronyms associated with habitats. Forest Ranks (or F-Ranks) 

were developed for the forest planning species. The ranking process generally followed the 

conventions used by NatureServe and others in defining State and Global Ranks. The F-Ranks 

were used in the viability risk assessment as a categorical variable representing a species’ current 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

2 

abundance and distribution (table 2). This represents the existing condition of each species’ 

abundance and distribution on the Coconino NF. Rare species are often associated with rare 

habitats which would not become common with management. Table 3, table 4, and table 5 list the 

habitat associations, threats, and forest ranking for federally listed, Southwestern Region 

Sensitive Species, and other forest planning for which there are viability concerns. 

Table 1. Key information for primary habitat associations 

Abbreviation ERU name Abbreviation ERU Name

DC Desert Communities PJG Pinyon Juniper with Grass 

IC Interior Chaparral PJES Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub 

CWRF Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest PJW Pinyon Juniper Woodland 

MBDRF Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

PP Ponderosa Pine

MWRF Montane Willow Riparian Forest MCFF Mixed Conifer with Frequent 

Fire 

WC Wetland MCIF Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire 

SDG Semi-desert Grassland SF Spruce-Fir 

GBG Great Basin Grassland AT Alpine Tundra

MSG Montane/Subalpine Grassland 

Table 2. Description of F-Ranks

F-Rank Description

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

F4 Common on the forest within its habitat

F5 Widespread and abundant on the forest within its habitat

F? Present on the forest but abundance information is insufficient to develop risk

FP Possibly could occur on the forest, but documented occurrences not known

FN Occurs on the forest, but no breeding population is documented on the forest

FO Occurs off the forest

FH Occurred on forest historically, but no known extant populations

Federally Listed Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally 

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (P.L. 93-205), as amended. Pursuant to Section 7 (2) (a) of the Endangered Species Act, a 

biological assessment would be prepared to assess the effects of implementing the Coconino NF 

plan selected alternative on endangered or threatened species and ensure that proposed actions in 

the selected alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

3 

The Coconino NF has 20 federally listed species or species proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act on its threatened and endangered species list. The majority of threatened 

and endangered species on the forest are associated with perennial streams and riparian habitat. 

Designated proposed and critical habitats are also listed in table 3. These do not change by 

alternative. Table 3 lists the species, listing status, known endemism, primary habitats, current 

estimated habitat (amount of occupied habitat or number of records where known), and fine filter 

threats. Species with fine filter threats are further analyzed through the fine filter process. Species 

with no fine filter threats are evaluated at the coarse filter (habitat) level. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

4 

Table 3. Threatened and endangered species with their habitats and threats

Name/Status Critical 

Habitat

Recovery 

Plan 

F 

Ranking Primary Habitat Current Estimated 

Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service 

Control

Amphibians

Chiricahua leopard frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis

Threatened

Endemic

232 acres Yes F1 MBRDF, MWRF, 

Wetlands, Streams, 

Springs. Ephemeral 

drainages within 

Recovery Unit 5

14 occupied sites in and 

around constructed and 

natural waters. Suitable 

habitat: 101,329 acres.

Disease, predation, mining 

activities, managed grazing, 

barriers to connectivity, 

pollutants, rarity. 

Birds

California condor 

Gymnogyps californianus

Experimental 

nonessential;

Endangered

None Yes FN Cliffs. Could use many 

ERUs

No occupied habitat. Two 

sitings on forest. Suitable 

habitat: 116,378 acres.

Energy development 

(transmission lines).

Mexican spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis lucida

Threatened

Endemic

575,100 acres Yes F2 PP Gambel oak, 

MCFF, MCIF

Cliffs and canyons

118,341 acres of protected 

activity centers (PACs) 

representing 190 occupied 

or formerly occupied sites 

that occur wholly or partly 

on the forest. Suitable 

habitat: 403,461 acres.

Disturbance at occupied 

nest sites and roosts from 

activities such as dispersed 

recreation, fire suppression 

activities. Managed grazing. 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Endangered

472 acres Yes F1 CWRF, MBDRF, 

Springs 

No occupied nesting 

habitat. Only single 

migratory and floater birds 

have been observed. 

7,250 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat not 

including springs.

Disturbance at occupied 

nest sites, rarity, managed 

grazing. Nest parasitism, 

invasive plant species, and 

water diversions. 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

Threatened

Endemic

Proposed No F2 CWRF, MBDRF, 

mesquite bosques

Occupied sites: 18 

representing 16.28 stream 

miles (1,790 acres habitat 

along the Verde River and 

its tributaries). Suitable 

habitat: 7,520 acres.

Disturbance during the 

breeding season from 

dispersed recreation 

activities such as hiking and 

camping, camping in 

developed campgrounds, 

and motorized travel.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

5 

Name/Status Critical 

Habitat

Recovery 

Plan 

F 

Ranking Primary Habitat Current Estimated 

Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service 

Control

Yuma Ridgway’s rail 

Rallus obsoletus 

yumanensis

Endangered

None Yes None No longer considered to 

occur or have potential 

habitat on the forest. 

None

Fish

Colorado pikeminnow

Ptychocheilus lucius

Experimental 

nonessential

Restricted Distribution

None Yes F2 Perennial streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied and potentially 

suitable: 35.2 miles. 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation 

and loss of habitat 

connectivity, disease, 

Competition and larval 

predation from introduced or 

invasive species.

Gila chub

Gila intermedia robusta

Endangered

Endemic

11.8 stream 

miles

No F1 Perennial streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied and potentially 

suitable: 16.4 miles 

Predation from and 

competition with nonnatives. Physiological stress 

due to habitat loss or 

degradation, disease,

Gila topminnow

Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis

Endangered

Endemic

None Yes F1 Perennial springs 

Perennial streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied: 9.1 miles4,

potentially suitable: 

13.7 miles. 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

disease, predation 

(bullfrogs, crayfish) and 

competition from nonnatives (Western 

mosquitofish)

Gila trout

Oncorhynchus gilae gilae

Threatened

Endemic

None Yes F1 Perennial streams, 

MBDRF, MWRF

Potentially suitable and 

occupied: 23.3 miles. 

Introduced to the West 

Fork of Oak Creek in 2015. 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

disease, competition and 

hybridization with non-native 

trout, restricted range (small, 

isolated populations).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

6 

Name/Status Critical 

Habitat

Recovery 

Plan 

F 

Ranking Primary Habitat Current Estimated 

Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service 

Control

Little Colorado spinedace 

Lepidomeda vittata

Threatened

Endemic

About 

31 stream 

miles

Yes F1 Perennial streams, 

MWRF

Occupied and suitable: 31 

miles

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation 

(roads, fire, sedimentation, 

decreased flow due to 

impoundments), disease, 

predation and competition 

from introduced or invasive 

species (predation by 

rainbow trout and crayfish)

Loach minnow 

Tiaroga cobitis

Endangered

Endemic

79.8 miles Yes F1 Perennial streams, 

Riparian forest types

Occupied: 9.1 miles in 

Fossil Creek. Potentially 

suitable: 143.8 miles 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation 

(dewatering of stream 

reaches), disease, predation 

by non-native fishes (catfish 

and red shiner)

Razorback sucker

Xyrauchen texanus

Endangered

42.7 miles Yes F2 Perennial streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied and potentially 

suitable: 22.6 miles. 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss, loss of 

connectivity, or degradation 

from water development, 

disease, predation by nonnative catfish, pesticides and 

pollutants that degrade 

water quality.

Spikedace

Meda fulgida

Endangered

117.7 miles Yes F1 Perennial streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied: 9.1 miles in 

Fossil Creek and Spring 

Creek. Critical Habitat:

Verde River: 73.2 miles.

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

disease, predation and 

competition with non-native 

species.

Mammals

Black-footed ferret

Mustela nigripes

Endangered

None Yes FH GBG, MSG, PJG No occupied habitat. 

377,775 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat 

(last confirmed sighting 40 

years ago).

None
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

7 

Name/Status Critical 

Habitat

Recovery 

Plan 

F 

Ranking Primary Habitat Current Estimated 

Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service 

Control

Mexican Gray Wolf

Canis lupus baileyi

Experimental nonessential; Endangered

Endemic

None Yes FN No primary. Could use 

many

No occupied habitat. 

Potentially suitable habitat: 

1,264,270 acres. Two 

sitings on forest.

None

Plants 

Arizona Cliffrose 

Purshia subintegra

Endangered 

Narrowly Endemic

None Yes F1 DC, SDG, Verde 

Formation

Occupied habitat: 1,000 

acres. Potentially suitable 

habitat: 57,571 acres. 

Managed grazing, dispersed 

recreation, mining.

San Francisco Peaks 

Ragwort 

Packera franciscana

Threatened

Narrowly Endemic

720 acres Yes F1 SF, AT, talus slopes Occupied habitat: 213 

acres. Potentially suitable 

habitat: 939 acres. 

Individual plants could be 

impacted by trampling,

crushing, or soil erosion 

from off-trail hiking and 

localized avalanche 

abatement.

Reptiles

Narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Threatened

Endemic

Proposed No F1 CWRF, MBDRF, 

MWRF, perennial 

streams

Potentially occupied: 151.6 

miles, potentially suitable 

176.5 miles, 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

loss of native fish prey due 

to habitat loss and invasive 

species, predation from 

invasive species. 

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake 

Thamnophis eques

Threatened

Endemic

Proposed No F1 CWRF, MBDRF, 

Wetlands perennial 

streams, ephemeral 

and intermittent 

drainages

Occupied habitat: lower 

Oak, Page Springs and 

Bubbling ponds fish 

hatcheries, Spring Creek, 

Sycamore Creek, and 

along the Verde River to 

Camp Verde. Suitable 

proposed critical habitat: 

95.8 stream miles 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

loss of fish and amphibian 

prey due to habitat loss and 

invasive species, predation 

and competition for prey. 

4 Occupied habitat is considered the perennial portion of Fossil Creek, upstream of the permanent barrier in the Mazatzal Wilderness. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

8 

Sensitive Species

The Coconino NF has occupied or potential habitat for 53 Southwestern Region Sensitive Species. There are 2 amphibians, 4 birds, 4 fish, 

7 invertebrates, 5 mammals, 31 plants, and no reptiles that are on the sensitive species list present or possibly present on the forest. Table 4

lists the species, known endemism, primary habitat (including any association with special features), current estimated habitat (amount of 

occupied habitat or number of records where known), and fine filter threats. Species with fine filter threats are further analyzed through the 

fine filter process. Species with no fine filter threats are evaluated at the coarse filter (habitat) level.

Table 4. Southwestern Region sensitive species with their habitats and threats

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Amphibians

Lowland leopard frog

Lithobates yavapaiensis

Endemic

F1 CWRF, MBDRF, streams, 

wetlands, springs, ephemeral 

and intermittent drainages

One occupied site at Fossil Creek. Potential 

suitable habitat: 5,573 acres not including 

springs and drainages. 

Disease, Invasive or nonnative exotic species, Rarity

Northern leopard frog

Lithobates pipiens

F2 Wetlands, springs, ephemeral 

and intermittent drainages, 

constructed waters. 

147 estimated occupied sites in constructed 

and natural waters between Mormon Lake 

and the Mogollon Rim. Potential suitable 

habitat: 9,879 acres not including springs, 

drainages, or constructed waters.

Disease, Invasive or nonnative exotic species

Birds

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

F4 Cliffs Occupied habitat: 32 known nesting pairs. 

Suitable habitat: 109,048 acres. 

Disturbance 

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

F3 CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF, PP, 

large trees and snags in these 

vegetation types, cliffs

Occupied habitat: 6 breeding areas and 11 

confirmed winter roosts. 

Suitable habitat: 56,670 acres (excluding 

cliffs). 

27 potential winter roosts. 

Disturbance. Electrocution 

from transmission lines. 

Collisions with 

communication and other 

structures. 

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

F3 PP, MCFF, MCIF, Occupied habitat: 83 post fledgling areas 

(including 3 shared with other forests) that 

total 54,686 acres. 

Suitable habitat: 878,599 acres.

Disturbance, rarity

Western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia hypugaea

FP GBG, MSG, PJG No occupied sites. Suitable habitat: 

374,544 acres.

None
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

9 

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Fish

Desert sucker

Catostomus clarki

Endemic

F3 Perennial streams, all riparian 

forest types

Occupied and Suitable: 193.5 miles. Upper 

Verde River watershed including lower Oak 

and Sycamore Creeks

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

disease, predation, 

competition (invasives), 

rarity 

Little Colorado sucker

Catostomus sp.

Endemic

F3 Perennial streams, all riparian 

forest types

Occupied and suitable: Lower and upper 

Clear Creek (124.1 potential perennial 

stream miles)

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation, 

disease, predation, 

competition (invasives), 

rarity 

Roundtail chub

Gila robusta now including the 

former Headwater chub (G. 

nigra)* 

Endemic

*Change as of April 7, 2017 

Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 

66 pp. 16981-16988

F2 Perennial streams, All riparian 

forest types 

Potentially occupied and suitable: 360 miles Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation 

from water development, 

predation and competition 

with non-natives, disease, 

rarity 

Sonora sucker

Catostomus insignis

Endemic

F3 Perennial streams, all riparian 

forest types

Occupied and Suitable: 193.5 miles. Upper 

Verde River Watershed including Oak and 

Sycamore Creeks 

Physiological stress due to 

habitat loss or degradation 

and alteration of hydrologic 

regime, disease, predation 

(catfishes), rarity

Invertebrates

A Caddisfly

Lepidostoma knulli

Endemic

F2 Perennial streams, springs, 

MBDRF, CWRF

Occupied and Suitable: Oak Creek from 

Sedona upstream to Pumphouse Wash, 14.5 

miles 

Rarity

A caddisfly

Wormaldia planae

Restricted distribution

F? Perennial streams, MBDRF, 

CWRF

Occupied and suitable: Fossil Creek, 11.7 

miles 

Rarity. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

10

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

A mayfly

Moribaetis mimbresaurus

Restricted distribution

F2 Perennial and ephemeral 

streams, springs, CWRF, 

MBDRF 

Occupied habitat: 1 site in Pumphouse 

Wash, 1 site in Oak Creek. Suitable habitat 

likely similar to L. knulli, 14.5 miles 

Rarity

Balmorhea Saddle-Case 

Caddisfly

Protoptila balmorhea

Narrowly endemic

FO Perennial springs, CWRF, 

MBDRF

Occupied and Suitable habitat: Page and 

Lolo Mai springs 

Rarity

California floater

Anodonta californiensis

Endemic

FH Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, all riparian forest 

types

No occupied sites. Suitable habitat: 287.8 

miles not including springs 

Invasive or non-native 

species

Fossil springsnail

Pyrgulopsis simplex

Narrowly endemic

F2 Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied: multiple springs in the Fossil 

Creek watershed. Suitable: 13.7 miles not 

including springs 

Rarity

Page springsnail 

Pyrgulopsis morrisoni

Listing not warranted 

10/8/2015

Narrowly endemic

FO Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, CWRF

No occupied sites on the forest. 

Suitable: Springs in the Page Springs area of 

Oak Creek 

Rarity

Mammals

Allen’s lappet-browed bat

Idionycteris phyllotis

Restricted distribution

F3 Large trees and snags in PP, 

MCFF, and MCIF; cliffs, caves

Thirteen occupied roosts. 

Suitable habitat not including caves: 61,798 

acres.

Disturbance. Rarity

Navajo Mogollon vole 

Microtus mogollonensis 

Navajo

F2 PP, MCFF, MCIF, openings in 

PJW

Six known occupied areas. Suitable habitat: 

959,348 acres

None

Pale Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Corynorhinus townsendii 

pallescens

F3 Cliffs, caves, archaeological 

sites

Occupied habitat: 9 known roosts. Suitable 

habitat: 110,335 acres not including caves 

and archaeological sites. 

Disease. Disturbance 

Spotted bat

Euderma maculatum

FN Cliffs and caves No occupied habitat. Suitable habitat 

110,335 acres.

Disturbance
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

11

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Western red bat

Lasiurus blossevillii

F3 Deciduous trees in CWRF, 

MBDRF, MWRF, PP

Two occupied areas: West Clear Creek 

Wilderness, Kachina Village area. Suitable 

habitat: 324,754 acres.

Pesticides

Plants 

Alcove bog orchid

Platanthera zothecina

Restricted distribution

F1 MBDRF and springs (hanging 

gardens)

5 occupied sites totaling about one acre. 

Suitable habitat: 9,135 acres

Rarity and high levels of 

dispersed recreation in West 

Fork of Oak Creek 

Arizona bugbane

Actaea arizonica

Endemic

F2 Canyons in MBDRF, MWRF 20 occupied sites totaling about 185 acres. 

Suitable habitat: 7,641 acres.

Rarity and high levels of 

dispersed recreation in West 

Fork of Oak Creek

Arizona phlox

Phlox amabilis

Endemic

F3 DC, SDG, PJW, PP Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (16 records). 

Suitable habitat: 1,206,560 acres.

Rarity

Arizona sneezeweed

Helenium arizonicum

Endemic

F2 MSG, PP, Wetlands, Springs, Occupied habitat: about 500 acres (264 

records). Suitable habitat: 45,000 acres.

Rarity, Non-native invasive 

species, disturbance

Arizona sunflower

Helianthus arizonensis

Restricted distribution

F1 PJW Occupied habitat: 1 acre (1 record). Suitable 

habitat: 92,913 acres.

Rarity

Bebb's willow

Salix bebbiana

F1 MWRF, springs Occupied habitat: < 50 acres (10 records). 

Suitable habitat: 3,829 acres not including 

springs.

Rarity, herbivory, water 

diversion

Blumer’s dock

Rumex orthoneurus

Restricted distribution

F1 MWRF, springs Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (1 record). 

Suitable habitat: 3,829 acres not including 

springs

Rarity, herbivory, water 

diversion

Cochise sedge

Carex ultra

Endemic

F1 MBDRF, MWR, springs. Occupied habitat: <1 acre (2 records). 

Suitable habitat: 7,441acres not including 

springs.

Rarity

Crenulate moonwort

Botrychium crenulatum

F2 AT Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (5 records). 

Suitable habitat: 939 acres.

Rarity. Off trail hiking. 

Localized avalanche 

abatement. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

12

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Disturbed (Tusayan) 

rabbitbrush

Chrysothamnus molestus

Endemic

F1 Calcareous soils in PJG Occupied habitat: 340 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 8,040 acres.

Rarity, excessive 

disturbance to plants 

Ertter’s rose

Rosa woodsii var. ertterae

Endemic

F1 MBDRF, MWRF Occupied habitat: < 1 acre representing 7 

records. Suitable habitat: 2,751 acres

Rarity and high levels of 

dispersed recreation in West 

Fork of Oak Creek

Flagstaff beardtongue

Penstemon nudiflorus

Endemic

F3 PJES, PP Occupied habitat: 500 acres (330 records). 

Suitable habitat: 895,117 acres.

Rarity, Ground disturbance

Flagstaff pennyroyal

Hedeoma diffusa

Endemic

F1 Rocky dolomitic limestone 

cliffs and ledges in PP, IC

Occupied habitat: >700 acres representing 

258 occurrences. Suitable habitat: 

111,918 acres.

Ground disturbance from 

vegetative treatments, Rarity

Phillip’s (Grand Canyon) 

agave

Agave phillipsiana

Endemic

F1 Archaeological sites on 

limestone soils in SDG, PJES, 

DC.

Occupied habitat: <10 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 234,453 acres.

Rarity, Ground disturbance

Hairy clematis (Arizona 

leatherflower)

Clematis hirsutissima var. 

hirsutissima

F1 PP Occupied habitat: 15 acres. Suitable habitat: 

569,400 acres.

Disturbance, rarity

Heathleaf wild buckwheat

Eriogonum ericifolium var.

ericifolium

Narrowly Endemic

F1 Verde Formation in DC Occupied habitat: 25 acres. Suitable habitat: 

57,571 acres.

Rarity 

Lyngholm’s cliffbrake

Pellaea lyngholmii

Endemic

F1 Cliffs Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (4 records). 

Suitable habitat: 53,381 acres. 

Rarity, Ground Disturbance

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil

Desmodium metcalfei

Restricted distribution

F1 MBDRF, PJES Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (4 records). 

Suitable habitat: 267,447 acres.

Rarity, disturbance
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

13

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Mogollon thistle

Cirsium parryi ssp. 

Mogollonicum

Narrowly endemic

F1 Springs Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (3 records). 

Suitable habitat: 5 acres

Rarity. Invasive plants.

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort

Arenaria aberrans

Endemic

F1 SDG, IC, PJES, PJG, PP Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (15 records). 

Suitable habitat: 1,065,886 acres.

Rarity, Disturbance

Page Springs agave

Agave yavapaiensis

Endemic

F1 Archaeological sites in SDG, 

PJES 

Occupied habitat: <1 acre (45 records). 

Suitable habitat: 193,205 acres

Rarity, Ground disturbance

Ripley’s wild buckwheat

Eriogonum ripleyi

Narrowly Endemic

F1 Verde Formation in DC Occupied habitat: 25 acres. Suitable habitat: 

57,571 acres.

Rarity 

Rock fleabane

Erigeron saxatilis

Endemic 

F1 Cliffs and ledges in canyons Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (8 records). 

Suitable habitat: 29,453 acres.

Rarity, Ground Disturbance

Rusby’s milkwort (Hualapai 

milkwort)

Polygala rusbyi

Narrowly endemic

F2 Verde Formation in DC, SDG, 

PJES 

Occupied habitat: 100 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 84,636 acres.

Rarity

Rusby's milkvetch

Astragalus rusbyi

Endemic

F3 Basalt soils in PP, MSG, 

MCFF, MCIF, Aspen

Occupied habitat: < 1,200 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 531,523 acres. 

Rarity, disturbance

Sacred Mountain agave

Agave verdensis

Endemic

F1 Archaeological sites in SDG 

and DC.

Occupied habitat: < 50 acres representing 11 

records. Suitable habitat: 89,401 acres

Rarity, Ground disturbance

Senator Mine alumroot

Heuchera eastwoodiae

Endemic

FP Cliffs Occupied habitat: none. Suitable habitat: 

55,505 potential acres of cliffs in canyons.

Rarity

Sunset Crater beardtongue

Penstemon clutei

Narrowly endemic

F2 PP, PJG, PJW, cinder soils in 

Sunset Crater volcanic field

Occupied habitat: 50 acres. Suitable habitat: 

15,314 acres.

Rarity, Dispersed recreation
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

14

Name F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat Current Estimated Habitat Fine Filter Threats Under 

Forest Service Control

Tonto Basin agave

Agave delamateri

Endemic

F1 Archaeological sites in SDG, 

PJES, DC

Occupied habitat: <50 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 234,453 acres. 

Rarity, Ground disturbance

Verde breadroot

Pediomelum verdiensis

Narrowly endemic

F1 Verde Formation in DC, SDG Occupied habitat <5 acres (11 records). 

Suitable habitat: 23,990 acres

Rarity

Verde Valley (Mearn’s) sage

Salvia dorrii var. mearnsii

Narrowly endemic

F2 Verde Formation in DC, SDG, 

PJES 

Occupied habitat: <50 acres. Suitable 

habitat: 57,571 acres.

Rarity

Other Species

There are 56 other species whose viability may be at risk (1 amphibian, 9 birds, 2 fish, 4 invertebrates, 5 mammals, and 35 plants) that are 

present or possibly present on the Coconino NF. Table 5 lists the species, NatureServe conservation status, known endemism, primary habitat 

(including any association with special features), current estimated habitat (amount of occupied habitat or number of records where known), 

and fine filter threats. Species with fine filter threats are further analyzed through the fine filter process. Species with no fine filter threats are 

evaluated at the coarse filter (habitat) level. 

Table 5. Other forest planning species with their habitats and threats

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Amphibian

Arizona toad

Anaxyrus microscaphus

Endemic

F2 CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF, Wetlands, 

Springs. Ephemeral and intermittent 

drainages used for movements.

Occupied and potentially suitable: 20,939 

acres not including springs

Disease, invasive exotic animal 

species, rarity, hybridization with 

Woodhouse’s toad.

Birds

Common black hawk

Buteogallus anthracinus 

Endemic

F4 CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF Occupied: 32 nesting areas. 

Potentially suitable: 

10,818 acres.

Disturbance 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

15

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Evening grosbeak

Coccothraustes 

verspertinus

F3 MCFF, MCIF, SF, Aspen Occupied and potentially suitable: 2,881 

acres. 

None

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis 

F3 SDG, GBG, MSG No occupied nesting habitat. 

Potentially suitable: 115,570 acres

None

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

F3 Cliffs. Occasionally snags and large 

trees in PP. 

Occupied habitat: 9 nesting areas. 

Potentially suitable: 10 potential nesting 

areas and 110,335 acres of potential cliff 

sites.

Disturbance. Electrocution from 

transmission lines. Collisions, injury, 

or death associated with 

communication towers or energy 

development structures. Large-scale 

wind/solar energy development 

Golden-crowned kinglet

Regulus satrapa 

F3 MCFF, MCIF, SF Occupied and potentially suitable: 

100,684 acres.

None

MacGillivray’s warbler

Geothlypis tolmiei 

F4 MBDRF, MWRF, MCFF, MCIF, SF Occupied and potentially suitable: 94,143 

acres.

None

Pinyon jay

Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus 

F4 PJES, PJG, PJW Estimated occupied and potentially 

suitable: 204,552 acres

None

Swainson’s thrush

Catharus ustulatus 

F1 MCIF, SF Estimated occupied and potentially 

suitable: 41,186 acres. 

None

Three-toed woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis 

F3 MCFF, MCIF, SF Estimated occupied and potentially 

suitable: 100,648 acres.

None

Fish

Bluehead sucker

Catostomus discobolus 

F3 Perennial streams, riparian forest 

types

Occupied and potentially suitable: 123.5 

miles. 

Physiological stress due to habitat 

loss or degradation –particularly 

larger perennial rivers and streams, 

disease, predation, competition 

(invasive species)
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

16

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Longfin dace

Agosia chrysogaster 

Endemic

F3 Perennial streams, CWRF, MBDRF Occupied and potentially suitable: 163.5 

miles 

Physiological stress due to habitat 

loss or degradation from flow 

alterations, predation (crayfish and 

Red Shiner)

Invertebrates

Alberta arctic

Oeneis alberta daura 

F2/F3 MSG, MCIF, Aspen, Springs Occupied and potentially suitable: 29,174 

acres, not including springs.

None

Arizona snaketail

Ophiogomphus 

arizonicus

Endemic

F2? Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, CWRF, MBDRF 

Occupied: Multiple sites in Oak Creek. 

Potentially suitable: 287.8 miles 

Rarity

Persephone’s darner

Aeshna persephone 

Endemic

F2? Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied: <1 stream mile. Potentially 

suitable: 287.8 miles.

Rarity 

Redrock stonefly

Anacroneuria wipukupa 

Restricted distribution

F2? Perennial springs, perennial 

streams, CWRF, MBDRF

Occupied: Collected at five sites within or 

near forest boundaries. Potentially 

suitable: 287.8 not including springs

Rarity

Mammals

Beaver

Castor canadensis 

F3 Streams, 

CWRF, MBDRF, MWRF

Occupied habitat: 719 acres. Potentially 

suitable habitat: 1,438 acres.

None

Greater Western mastiff 

bat

Eumops perotis 

californicus

F1 Cliffs Two records from the forest including 

one breeding site. No known roosts. 

Suitable habitat: 110,335 acres

None

Gunnison’s prairie dog

Cynomys gunnisoni

F3 GBG, MSG, PJG Occupied habitat: 7,294 acres. 

Potentially suitable: 377,775 acres.

Disease

Pronghorn antelope

Antilocapra americana

F3 GBG, Montane Grasslands, SDG Occupied and potentially suitable habitat: 

206,025 acres.

Disturbance. Connectivity, Rarity

Southwestern myotis

Myotis auriculus 

F3 Medium to large Gambel oak in PPGambel oak subtype, snags. 

Caves.

Occupied habitat: 15 known roosts. 

Potentially suitable habitat: 303,450 

acres not including caves.

Disease, disturbance to active 

maternity or winter roosts in caves.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

17

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Plants

Basin bladderpod

Lesquerella cinerea

Restricted distribution

F3 DC, SDG, PJES Occupied habitat: <5 acres (40 records). 

Potentially suitable: 417,066 acres.

Rarity

Bearded gentian

Gentianopsis barbellata

F2 AT Occupied habitat: 200 acres. Potentially 

suitable: 939 acres.

Rarity, off-trail hiking, localized 

avalanche abatement

Bigelow’s onion

Allium bigelovii

Restricted distribution

F2 DC, SDG, IC Occupied habitat: <1 acre (5 records). 

Potentially suitable: 203,049 acres 

Rarity

Black dropseed

Sporobolus interruptus

Endemic

F3 PP, GBG, MSG, PJES, PJG Occupied habitat: >6,000 acres (48 

records). Potentially suitable: 1,433,990 

acres.

Rarity

Black spleenwort 

Asplenium adiantumnigrum 

F1 Cliffs Occupied habitat: <1 acre (1 record). 

Potentially suitable: 2,787 acres.

Rarity

Blackroot sedge

Carex elynoides

F1 AT Occupied habitat: <1 acre. Potentially 

suitable: 939 acres

Rarity, off-trail hiking, localized 

avalanche abatement

Bollander’s quillwort

Isoetes bolanderi

F1 Wetlands Occupied habitat: <1 acre (1 record). 

Potentially suitable: 2,545 acres.

Rarity

Bristlecone pine

Pinus aristata

F3 SF Occupied and suitable habitat: 13,946 

acres. 

Non-native organisms - White pine 

blister rust

Colorado blue columbine

Aquilegia caerulea var. 

pinetorum

Restricted distribution

F1 MCIF, SF Occupied habitat: 1 acre (6 records). 

Suitable habitat: 51,028 acres.

None

Common moonwort

Botrychium lunaria

F1 SF, AT, MSG (subalpine portion) Occupied habitat: < 1 acre (23 records). 

Potentially suitable: 17,121 acres.

Rarity
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

18

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Corkbark (subalpine) fir

Abies lasiocarpa var. 

arizonica

Restricted distribution

F3 SF Occupied and potentially suitable: 13,946 

acres. 

None

Creeping milkvetch

Astragalus troglodytus

Endemic

F3 PP Occupied habitat: <5 acres (47 records). 

Potentially suitable: 1,111,196 acres

Rarity, disturbance

Dane’s dwarf gentian

Gentianella tenella

F1 AT Occupied habitat: <5 acres 9 records. 

Potentially suitable: 939 acres.

Rarity, off-trail hiking, localized 

avalanche abatement

Diamond Valley suncup

Camissonia gouldii

Restricted distribution

F1 PP 

Cinder soils in the Sunset Crater 

volcanic field

Occupied habitat: <1 acre (12 records). 

Potentially suitable: 15,314 acres.

Rarity

Different-nerve sedge

Carex heteroneura

F1 AT Occupied habitat: <5 acres (4 records). 

Potentially suitable: 939 acres.

Rarity, off-trail hiking, localized 

avalanche abatement

Ebony spleenwort

Asplenium playtneuron

F1 Rocky outcrops and cliffs (dacite 

rock formations)

Occupied habitat: <1 acre (4 records). 

Potentially suitable: 2,787 acres. 

Rarity

Flagstaff cinquefoil 

Potentilla sanguinea

(syn. Potentilla thurberi

var. sanguinea) 

Endemic

F1 PP Occupied habitat: 10 acres (17 records). 

Potentially suitable: 791,897 acres.

Rarity, disturbance 

Fossil Creek bedstraw

Galium collomiae

Endemic

F1 Cliffs Occupied habitat: <5 acres (20 records). 

Potentially suitable: 34,058 acres.

Rarity 

Graceful buttercup

Ranunculus inamoenus 

var. subaffinis

Narrowly endemic

F1 SF, AT Occupied habitat: <5 acres (30 records). 

Potentially suitable: 14,884 acres. 

Rarity 

Hall’s milkweed

Asclepias hallii

Restricted distribution

F1 MCIF, MSG Occupied habitat: <1 acre (2 records). 

Potentially suitable: 37,083 acres. 

None
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

19

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

James rubberweed

Hymenoxys jamesii

Endemic

F2 PP Occupied habitat: <1 acre (1 record). 

Potentially suitable: 1,055,732 acres.

Rarity, disturbance

Jones’ wild buckwheat

Eriogonum jonesii

F2 PJG, PP Occupied habitat: <5 acres (8 records). 

Potentially suitable: 1,053,329 acres.

Rarity, disturbance

MacDougal’s aletes

Aletes macdougalii

Restricted distribution

F1 PJES, PP, MBDRF Occupied habitat: <1 acre (8 records). 

Potentially suitable: 49,619 acres.

Rarity, disturbance

Mearn’s lotus

Lotus mearnsii var. 

mearnsii

Endemic

F3 Limestone soils in DC, SDG, PJES Occupied habitat: 20 acres (15 records). 

Potentially suitable: 97,817 acres.

Rarity

Oak Creek triteleia

Triteleia lemmoniae

Endemic

F2 PP, Wetlands, Springs Occupied habitat: <1 acre (20 records). 

Potentially suitable: 801,776 acres.

Rarity

Pond lily

Nuphar lutea

F1 Wetlands Occupied habitat: <5 acres. Potentially 

suitable: 9,879 acres.

Rarity, disturbance to plants

Reflected moonwort

Botrychium echo

F1 SF Occupied habitat: <1 acre (1 record). 

Potentially suitable: 13,946 acres.

Rarity

Serrate phacelia

Phacelia serrata

Restricted distribution

F3 PP, cinder soils Occupied habitat: 50 acres (26 records). 

Potentially suitable: 15,314 acres.

Rarity, Dispersed recreation

Skunk-top scurfpea

Pediomelum mephiticum

Restricted distribution

F1 SDG, PJES Occupied habitat: <1 acre (5 records). 

Potentially suitable: 353,518 acres. 

Rarity

Spider saxifrage

Saxifraga flagellaris

F1 AT Occupied habitat: <1 acre (1 record). 

Potentially suitable: 939 acres.

Rarity, off-trail hiking, localized 

avalanche abatement

Utah bladder fern

Cystopteris utahensis

Restricted distribution 

F2 Cliffs Occupied habitat: 5 acres (20 records). 

Potentially suitable: 56,669 acres.

Rarity
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

20

Name and NatureServe 

Conservation Status

F 

Ranking

Primary Habitat and Special 

Feature Association

Current 

Estimated Occupied and Potentially 

Suitable Habitat

Fine Filter Threats 

Under Forest Service Control

Verde four-nerve daisy 

Tetraneuris verdiensis

Narrowly endemic

F1 Desert Communities, Verde 

Formation

Occupied: 2.6 acres, 1 population. 

Potentially suitable: 1,920 acres

Rarity

Western mousetail

Myosurus nitidus

Restricted distribution

F2 PJES, PP Occupied habitat: <1 acre (4 records). 

Potentially suitable: 1,055,733 acres.

Rarity, Disturbance

Yavapai wild buckwheat

Eriogonum pulchrum

Endemic

F2 PJG Occupied habitat: <1 acre (2 records). 

Potentially suitable: 261,432 acres.

Rarity, Disturbance
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

21

Analysis

Following the identification of the forest planning species, a two-stage process, coarse filter1 and 

fine filter2

, was used to evaluate primary threats to species and their habitats and whether plan 

direction adequately provided for species viability. This process considered habitat (coarse filter) 

and species specific needs (fine filter). Species-specific plan direction was developed as needed to 

address those threats that the Forest Service could impact through management and for which it 

has jurisdictional control.

Species addressed in the coarse filter analysis are those who lack species-specific threats within 

Forest Service authority to their population viability. For some species, the likelihood of habitat 

limiting their resilience or increasing their vulnerability to stochastic events was low to moderate, 

which means that plan components that support desired conditions for the habitat, in general, are 

likely sufficient to provide for the species. However, for other species, this risk was moderate to 

high usually because the species is believed to have a limited range on the forest or it only occurs 

where certain habitat features are present, so it could be more vulnerable to altered disturbance 

regimes or stochastic events compared to species with a larger range. As plan components were 

developed, the habitat conditions that are required for these species were considered so that 

species without species-specific or fine filter threats had their habitat needs addressed by the plan 

components. 

Analysis of coarse filter plan components and their ability to address threats to habitat is based on 

the ability of alternatives to address concerns of habitat abundance, quality, and threats to ERUs 

and other habitats. For coarse filter species, if plan components for an alternative address the 

threats to these habitats, then the threats to the species would also be addressed. As a result, the 

viability of these species’ population is met by the plan components for the habitats and the 

species are not further analyzed in the fine filter analysis. Species for which the coarse filter is 

inadequate to address their threats are discussed further in the fine-filter analysis section.

This coarse filter/fine filter process was used to help develop and refine desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines for the revised plan. Species specific plan direction was developed 

where needed for threats which the Forest Service could impact through management and for 

which the Forest Service has jurisdictional control.

Coding used in this analysis refers the reader to specific plan components that would apply by 

alternative. For alternative A, when specific plan language is being referenced, the analysis will 

include information in parentheses indicating on which page(s) the referenced plan component(s) 

can be found (e.g., 1987 Plan, page 1). For alternatives B (modified), C, and D, codes have been 

 

1 Example of coarse filter process: Fire exclusion (a threat) in ponderosa pine (a habitat) has resulted in increased stand 

density, increased competition, and increased canopy. Consequently, less sunlight reaches the ground in some areas 

compared to reference conditions, and the understory (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) has become less abundant, diverse, 

and vigorous. Plan components that address fire exclusion by promoting natural fire return intervals and fire severity 

and describe desirable understory conditions address the primary threats to the habitat and associated species. 

Consequently, in this example, plan components that address the threat of fire exclusion to ponderosa pine also address 

the primary habitat threat to associated species. 

2 Example of fine filter process: Chiricahua leopard frogs have threats in addition to threats to their habitats. They are 

threatened by chytrid fungus, a disease that is fatal to amphibians. Desired conditions for habitats used by frogs 

describe the composition, structure and natural processes of their environment but do not address species specific 

threats. A fine filter guideline was added to the plan specifically to address the threat of disease.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

22

assigned to each plan component to reference and visually distinguish plan decisions more easily. 

Abbreviations are used in each code to identify: (1) if a plan decision applies forestwide (FW) or 

within a particular management (MA) or special (SA) area; (2) the applicable resource area (e.g., 

Air, Soil, etc.); and (3) type of plan decision (i.e., a desired condition (DC), objective (O), 

standard (S), or guideline (G)). The last part of each code is a number. For example, FW-WFPDC-1 and 2 point to forestwide direction (FW) in the “Wildlife, Fish and Plants” section (WFP) 

and specifically to desired conditions (DC) numbers 1 and 2. The code SA-Wild-S-1, 2, and 3 

refers to the plan section on “Special Areas” (SA) which includes wilderness (Wild) as one type 

of special area, and standards (S) 1, 2 and 3 in that section. 

Assumptions for Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

• Fifteen years was the timeframe used for the species analysis because it is the life of the plan, 

and there is more certainty with the models within this timeframe. 

• If a species is associated with a particular habitat, then the quality and quantity of habitat 

elements available to the species helps to predict its distribution and abundance within that 

habitat. 

• Habitat abundance and distribution similar to that which supported associated species during 

conditions as a consequence of evolutionary time, will likely contribute to their maintenance 

in the future (Haufler et al. 1999). Therefore, habitat abundance and distribution similar to 

reference conditions will likely contribute to associated species maintenance in the future and 

the farther a habitat departs from those conditions, the lower the likelihood that it is 

sustainable and the greater the risk to viability of associated species.

• Risks to some species are the same as the risks to the habitats in which they occur. It was 

assumed that actions to address the risks or departures in these habitats would benefit the 

species as well. 

• Little change to the amount of habitat, or habitat abundance, has occurred between reference 

conditions and the present. In other words, the Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest on the 

forest now was Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest in reference conditions. Little change to 

the amount of cliffs on the forest has occurred since reference conditions, and because little 

management occurs on cliffs, little change to the quality of cliff habitat has occurred. 

• In general, the farther a habitat is departed from desired conditions (i.e., from reference or 

reference adjusted conditions), the greater the risk to viability of associated species and the 

less the alternative’s viability effectiveness. Conversely, the closer a habitat is to desired 

conditions, the lower the risk to viability of associated species and the greater the alternative’s 

viability effectiveness.

• It was assumed that the states in the Ponderosa Pine Gambel Oak subtype were proportional 

to the states in the Ponderosa Pine ERU as a whole. 

Abundance, distribution, and quality of habitat

Abundant and well-distributed habitat provides for the continued persistence of a species. 

Abundance is the amount of habitat on National Forest System lands. Unless otherwise indicated, 

we assumed that little change to the amount of habitat would occur over time. In some cases, the 

amount of suitable habitat (quality) acres can change such as when grassland becomes wooded or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

23

when a large fire removes the entire forest overstory. Note that some habitats are naturally rare 

like riparian forests, or alpine tundra. 

Abundance values (consisting of rare, occasional, and common) were used to categorize the 

projected abundance of each habitat after 15 years of implementing each plan alternative. Fifteen 

years is considered the life of the plan during which a trajectory for habitat improvement or 

protection would be set. Fifteen years was also considered the point in time for which vegetative 

modeling would most accurately reflect progress toward achieving desired conditions and the 

consequences of plan direction between alternatives could be reasonably compared. Habitat 

distribution is expressed in terms of the mix of vegetation states or seral stages within an ERU. 

Habitat distribution can change with management, which is often the purpose of treatments. 

Habitat distribution considered the condition of intermixed ownerships and conditions, which 

may affect the interactions of species among suitable habitat areas on National Forest System 

lands. Lands in other ownership within or surrounding the Coconino may contribute to, or hinder, 

maintenance of species viability on National Forest System land. 

Future habitat abundance and future habitat distribution based on management and activities are 

qualitatively classified (table 6). Future distribution is classified in terms of desired conditions; 

hence, while a habitat element may be common on the Coconino NF in the future, if it is still 

mostly departed from these conditions, it would be considered poorly distributed. 

Table 6. Values used to categorize projected abundance of each habitat element 

Values for habitat abundance and distribution are estimated for existing condition and the 15-year 

plan period with consideration of trend to 50 years for each habitat by alternative. The values are 

primarily based on treatment objectives (table 7). For more information, see the sections on 

Vegetation and Fire, Soil, Watersheds and Water, Riparian Areas, and Biophysical Features, in 

volume I of the FEIS. Habitat quality may affect the movements and interactions of individuals 

among the suitable habitat areas found on National Forest System lands. This approach relies on 

the assumption that conditions similar to those that supported associated species during recent 

evolutionary history would likely contribute to their maintenance in the future, and the further a 

habitat departs from reference distribution and reference conditions, the greater the risk to 

viability of associated species. 

Habitat Abundance 

Value Description

Rare The habitat (ERU or habitat element) is rare, with generally less than 100 

occurrences, or patches of the element generally covering less than 1 percent 

of the national forest planning area.

Occasional The habitat (ERU or habitat element) is encountered occasionally, and 

generally is found in 1 to 10 percent of the national forest planning area.

Common The habitat (ERU or habitat element) is abundant and frequently encountered, 

and generally is found on more than 10 percent of the national forest planning 

area.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

24

Table 7. Values used to categorize distribution and quality of habitat and habitat elements

Value Description of Habitat Distribution and Quality Values

Poor High departure. The structure, composition, and or functioning of habitat is in poor condition 

relative to reference conditions. Number and size of habitat areas and /or their evenness in 

distribution across the landscape is greatly reduced. 

Fair Moderate departure. The structure, composition, and or functioning of habitat is in fair 

condition relative to reference conditions. Number and size of habitat areas and/or their 

evenness in distribution across the landscape is somewhat reduced.

Good Low departure. The structure, composition, and/or functioning is similar to reference 

conditions. Number and size of habitat areas and /or their evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is similar to or only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions.

Likelihood of habitat limitation variable

Habitat abundance and quality values are combined to create one variable to indicate the general 

likelihood that the habitat would be limiting to populations of associated species, considering 

LRMP management and activities. This was done for each ERU and habitat element by 

alternative. The values are based on treatment objectives and mainly reflect the findings in the 

Vegetation/Fire, Riparian, Water, and Soil and other resources sections in Volume I of the FEIS 

(table 8). This “likelihood of limitation” was described as low, low-moderate, moderate, or high. 

In general, poor quality rare habitat would be more likely to increase the likelihood of risk to 

viability of associated species; good quality common habitat would be less likely to increase the 

risk to viability of associated species. In this general context, habitat could be limiting due to the 

abundance, distribution, or quality of habitat. 

Table 8. Likelihood that habitat abundance and habitat quality will be a limiting factor to associated 

species 

Habitat Habitat Quality

Abundance Poor Fair Good

Rare High likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

High likelihood that habitat 

would be a limiting factor for 

species viability

Moderate likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

Occasional High likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

Moderate likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

Low likelihood that habitat 

would be a limiting factor 

species viability

Common Moderate likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

Low-Moderate likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting 

factor for species viability

Low likelihood that habitat 

would be a limiting factor for 

species viability

Species likelihood of limitation variable

Providing for species viability requires providing habitat (within the capacity of the forest) in a 

condition that allow existing populations to persist. The ability of existing populations to respond 

to available habitat depends in part on the populations’ current robustness, which is generally a 

function of size or the number of populations. To reflect this, the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variable was combined with a species’ F-Rank for each species/habitat element interaction to 

generate this rating. An F Rank is a categorical variable that describes the species current 

abundance and distribution on the forest (table 9). In general, for a given habitat condition, few 

small populations would be at greater risk than many widespread and abundant populations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

25

Table 9. Likelihood that an individual species would be limited by its habitat

F Rank Likelihood of Limitation

High Moderate Low-Moderate Low

F1

Very rare on the forest within its habitat – 

occupies a very small portion of its 

habitat.

Very High High Moderate-High Moderate

F2

Rare on the forest within its habitat - 

occupies a small portion of its habitat

High ModerateHigh Moderate-High Moderate

F3

Uncommon on the forest within its 

habitat

ModerateHigh Moderate Low-Moderate Low

F4

Common on the forest within its habitat Moderate LowModerate Low-Moderate Low

F5

Widespread and abundant on the forest 

within its habitat

LowModerate Low Low Low

F? ,FP, FN 

F? – present on the forest, but 

abundance information is insufficient to 

develop risk

FP- possibly could occur on the forest, 

but documented occurrences not known

FN – occurs on the forest, but no 

breeding population is documented on 

the forest

High Moderate Low-Moderate Low

FH

Occurred on the forest historically, but no 

known extant populations

High Moderate Low-Moderate Low

FO

Occurs off of the forest

Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable Not Applicable Not 

Applicable

As described above, associations of very rare species with habitat elements that are likely to be 

most limiting were identified as those most at risk; associations of more common species with 

habitats less likely to be limiting received lower risk ratings.

Management effect variable

This variable 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 tally or number of 

management effects ratings for a species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is 

for that species viability. For example, a management effect of ‘4’ under alternative A means that 

plan components may not exist or may be few and a decline in habitat quality as a result of 

management or lack management that result from plan components could be expected. In 

contrast, a management effect of ‘2’ under alternative B (modified) means that plan components 

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

most habitat and habitat elements and is more effective for species viability than alternative A.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

26

Table 10. Description of relative management effect rating

Management 

Effect Value

Description

1 Plan components provide optimal protection and management for all habitat and habitat 

element occurrences in the plan area. Quality of habitat or habitat elements is 

maintained or improved by providing protection, maintenance, and restoration to all or 

most occurrences (with limited exceptions). Where applicable, plan components 

address all identified fine filter species threats and needs in the plan area.

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. Where applicable, plan components address the majority of identified fine 

filter species threats and needs.

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.

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.

Viability Effectiveness and Fine Filter Analysis

The fine filter analysis discusses finer scale species needs or concerns that are in addition to the 

coarse filter. Viability needs of species associated with the coarse filter habitat are generally met 

by improving, maintaining, or moving toward ERU or riparian area desired conditions. Standards 

and guidelines help meet the viability needs of species associated with fine filter habitat elements.

However, the coarse-fine filter approach is not entirely discrete in that standards and guideline 

can contribute to viability for some coarse filter species, while the needs of fine filter species can 

also be provided for, in part, by the coarse filter desired conditions. 

Coarse filter comparison of alternatives was done using a combination of using likelihood of 

habitat limitation values, management effect, and habitat trends. Likelihood of habitat limitation 

represent the intersection of abundance and quality and mainly reflect the findings in the 

Vegetation/Fire, Riparian, Water, and Soil and other resources sections in Volume I of the FEIS. 

Management effect is the overall expected outcome of alternative implementation in terms of 

species viability and are the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. 

Habitat trends (away, static, slowly toward, toward) were also used to compare the estimated rate 

of change, or improvement, relative to desired conditions for each alternative. Vegetation trend

was used because vegetation responds more rapidly to natural or human-caused disturbances than 

soil and changes in vegetation would be more likely to occur within the planning period due to 

treatments. 

The likelihood that a particular species would be limited by its habitat is also called the species 

likelihood of limitation and is a viability risk rating. The species likelihood of limitation 

outcomes for each species/habitat relationship were based on combining the species F Rank with 

the associated habitats likelihood of limitation (table 9). Viability risk categories are very high 

(VH), high (H), moderate-high (MH), moderate (M), low-moderate (LM), and low (L). Risk 

ratings of low to moderate are assumed to pose little risk to viability because they would fall 

within the natural range of variation in the environment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

27

A fine filter analysis was conducted for species with threats in addition to those associated with 

habitat. A section called Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics compared the effects of plan 

language in each alternative on issues and topics relevant to a number of species. This section 

included topics and issues such as: mechanized use on trails in botanical and geological areas, 

connectivity, motor vehicle and disturbance in general, disturbance to plants, climate change, 

non-native or invasive species, and at-risk species. The analysis for each fine filter species 

included not only the coarse filter analysis for its habitats, but further evaluation of the specific 

topics and issues relevant to that species. 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics

Species-related issues were identified in the Analysis of the Management Situation (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a) and through comments received during the 90-day comment period. Some of 

those issues are shared by many of the species analyzed in the environmental impact statement. 

This section looks at some of the primary issues that species on the forest share: connectivity, 

motor vehicle disturbance, disturbance (to plants), non-native or invasive species, and at-risk 

species. Rather than repeat this analysis for every species to which it applies, these topics are 

being addressed once here. In the subsequent discussions on specific species, these wildlife and 

plant issues and topics will be incorporated by reference as applicable. For example, the analysis 

for Chiricahua leopard frog points to the Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section for additional analysis regarding the impacts of invasive species.

Connectivity 

Habitat connectivity was identified as an issue in the Analysis of the Management Situation in 

2010 and through public comment. The concern was that the revised plan may not adequately 

promote habitat connectivity, address fragmentation, nor promote the identification or removal of 

potential barriers to wildlife movement or pollinators.

Contiguous or mostly contiguous blocks of habitat provide movement corridors for breeding, 

foraging, dispersal, and migration for terrestrial and aquatic species, including pollinators. 

Connectivity between habitat patches promotes movements of species between foraging and 

wintering grounds, up and down streams, and are needed for immigration, emigration, dispersal, 

as well as genetic flow between populations. Connectivity can occur at different spatial scales and 

among similar and different habitat patches. Species such as mountain lions or mule deer may 

move over thousands of acres, whereas Abert’s squirrels or northern leopard frogs move over a 

much smaller scale. These movements assure survival of individuals, family groups, help prevent 

local populations from extinction (Laurance 1991, Beier and Loe 1992), enable gene flow and 

reduce inbreeding depression (Beier and Loe 1992, Bennett 2003), and facilitate essential 

ecological processes like pollination and seed dispersal (Townsend and Levey 2005). 

Connectivity within and between stream networks is critical for persistence of many aquatic 

species by providing habitats for completion of all stages of species life histories and providing 

refugia in times of flood or drought, food resources and nutrients in the ecosystem (Fausch et al.

2002). 

Habitat fragmentation can alter connectivity. Habitat fragmentation can be caused by natural 

processes (e.g., wildfire or flooding) or by unnatural processes (e.g., human development, energy 

production, roads). Connectivity can also be affected when linkages, or movement areas, are 

fragmented by unsuitable environmental conditions such as invasive or non-native species or 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

28

unsuitable temperatures. Fragmentation is when previously large or intact areas are broken into 

smaller disconnected areas by human activities. Barriers to animal movement can threaten the 

long-term persistence of wildlife populations and the long-term stability of ecosystems (Noss 

1983, Wilcox and Murphy 1985, Noss 1987, Bennett 2003, Henle et al. 2004). Habitat 

fragmentation can cause problems such as roadway mortality and genetic isolation, and can 

increase the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions and unwanted close encounters with wildlife. 

Habitat fragmentation can be somewhat mitigated by protecting linkages, travelways, or 

corridors. Natural linkages include ridgelines, canyons, riparian areas, cliffs, and intact swaths of 

forest or grasslands. Linkages are most effective when they connect relative large and 

unfragmented areas of protected habitat that are large enough to sustain healthy wildlife 

populations and associated ecosystems. Wildlife linkages and their associated habitat may help 

wildlife adapt to changing climate by allowing populations to shift their range with latitude or 

elevation as the distribution of vegetation communities (Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD) 2013). Linkages benefit plants by providing avenues for pollinator movement, 

allowing pollen transfer between populations (Townsend and Levey 2005). 

Prior to 1876, we assume there were few to no barriers to animal movement or plant dispersal in 

northern Arizona. Since that time, population growth has resulted in urbanization, lands in 

different ownerships, more roads and traffic, and increased year-round recreation on national 

forest lands and wilderness areas. The development and use of structures has affected movement 

corridors and dispersal potential for many species, particularly wide-ranging animals. Structures 

can include roads, railroads, dams, fences, water diversions, and structures associated with 

energy, communication, management, and permitted activities. Traffic volume can contribute to 

fragmentation by reducing the frequency with which wildlife cross busy highways (Gagnon et al. 

2007). Connectivity has also been affected by changes in vegetation; this includes encroachment 

of trees in and between grassland areas, invasive species, drought, or entire loss of movement 

corridors as a result of uncharacteristic wildfire. Lands in other ownership also affect connectivity 

via urban and rural development and increased activities and infrastructure. Not all habitats are, 

or should be connected. For example, endemic species often develop in isolated springs. 

Several collaborative efforts have evaluated connectivity on the forest including the Arizona 

Wildlife Linkages Assessment (AZGFD 2006b), the Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity 

Assessment (AZGFD 2013a), and the San Francisco Peaks to Mogollon Rim Linkage Design 

(AZGFD 2013b). The 2013b report identified two wildland blocks that include the Coconino NF: 

the San Francisco Peaks and Mogollon Rim blocks. Located on the west side of Interstate 17, 

these two blocks were considered biologically important to 11 focal species and are expected to 

remain in relatively natural condition for at least 50 years. Three ‘strands’ or linkages were 

identified and suggested to maintain the connection between these two wildland blocks. The focal 

species were: Abert’s squirrel, badger, black bear, bobcat, elk, Gunnison’s prairie dog, mule deer, 

porcupine, pronghorn, Arizona black rattlesnake and northern leopard frog. Roads, rail lines, and 

developed lands were identified as significant obstacles. 

The 2013b report also included possible mitigation measures for barriers and recommendations 

for maintaining or improving the permeability of wildland blocks for wildlife. These included

removing or redesigning fences and addressing impacts from irresponsible recreation, noise, 

lighting, invasive species, unrestrained domestic pets, and other sources. Roadway mitigation 

structures could include overpasses, bridges, and culverts and so on to facilitate movement above 

or beneath roadways. Mitigation would be site-specific and dependent on the target species, scale 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

29

of the road, topography, traffic volume, and other considerations. Possible strategies for reducing 

the impacts of urban and rural development that are applicable to public lands are mentioned: 

combine habitat conservation with compatible goals such as recreation and protection of water 

quality; plan trails to minimize resource damage and disturbance of wildlife; encourage users to 

stay on trails and keep dogs leashed, and minimize human-wildlife conflict; encourage wildlifefriendly fencing; and discourage the killing of threat species such as rattlesnakes. This report also 

recommends prioritizing parcels that overlap wildlife corridors for future acquisition as open 

space.

All Alternatives

All alternatives identify known corridors such as the ones near Fort Valley, A-1 Mountain, Woody 

Ridge, and along busy highways (1987 Plan, pages 206-113 and 114). These corridors are 

mentioned in Background and Description for Wildlife, Fish and Plants in the proposed revised 

plan, because they are part of the existing condition. 

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 

45,962 acres and have 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); MA-PineBelt-DC-5, 6, 7, 8, MA-LkMaryDC-4, MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 4, and MA-LkMary-S-1). 

All alternatives would provide large tracts of unroaded landscapes in Deadman Wash, which

would benefit disturbance-sensitive pronghorn and golden eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-87; MAPntdDsrt-DC-2, MA-VolcanWd-DC-4).

All alternatives promote fence designs that minimize obstructions to most animal movements 

(page 69, FW-WFP-G-- 6). Depending on where the fences are, this would maintain or improve 

the permeability of wildland blocks and corridors where ever they occur.

Roads fragment habitat by breaking large areas into small isolated patches supporting fewer 

individuals, and these small populations can lose genetic diversity and can become at risk of local 

extinction (Dodd et al. 2011). Barriers to movement or mortality hazards like roads would be 

reduced through expected work associated with the Four-Forest Restoration project that would 

decommission 200 to 800 miles of unauthorized roads and system roads (FW-RdsFac-O-1). 

These are not new roads but are identified on the motor vehicle use map. Although there is no 

plan objective, this work is also expected to occur in alternative A. Assuming each road is about 

15 feet wide, including drainage ditches, then 1 mile of road equals about 1.8 acres of habitat 

(15 feet x 5,280 feet per mile=79,200 feet squared/43,560 square feet per acre=1.8 acres). 

Assuming that each naturalized or decommissioned road eventually becomes re-vegetated, then 

200 decommissioned miles would represent approximately 360 acres of habitat and 800 miles 

would be the equivalent of 1,440 acres of habitat. 

Alternative A

In alternative A, connectivity of habitats is primarily addressed through area-specific or habitatspecific plan language (i.e., FLEA, Sedona-Oak Creek Area, Highway Corridor 180, Mogollon 

Rim, Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer Less Than 40 Percent Slope, Pinyon Juniper Woodland Less 

Than 40 Percent Slope, Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper Above the Rim, Riparian and Open 

Water). See 1987 Plan, pages 124, 125, 126, 133, 204; 148; 151;152; 153; 164; 201; 206-4; 206-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

30

11; 206-50-51, 206-73, 206-75, 76, 206-103, 206-105, 206-107, 206-111, 206-113,114, 116. This 

language would protect some of the known travelways or corridors, provide cover in travelways, 

and reduce fragmentation. In addition, forestwide range standards and guidelines state that 

antelope passes, let-down fences, electric fences, or elk jumps should be installed wherever 

necessary to improve wildlife travelways (1987 Plan, page 69). This language would maintain or 

improve the permeability of wildland blocks where they exist and reduce the impacts to wildlife 

from human activities or management. Steeper slope habitats, designated wilderness, and rugged 

or hard to access terrain have maintained connectivity due to lack of management. 

The approximately 151,333 acres of designated wilderness is managed to maintain wilderness 

resource values while emphasizing wilderness recreation and watershed condition (1987 Plan, 

page 105). Mechanized use and motorized use are not permitted in wilderness. Although naturally 

ignited fires are encouraged, few to none have been allowed to burn because of concerns for 

values-at-risk, human safety, and plan language that makes burning logistically more challenging 

to accomplish (see Vegetation and Fire Report for more detail). Designated wildernesses are not 

fragmented by roads or lands in other ownership, are widely distributed on the forest, generally 

overlap rugged terrain such as canyons, mountains, or cliffs, and vary in size. They are generally 

undisturbed by people or management activities except at trail heads, parking areas, and along 

main trails. For the most part, they maintain ecological function and biodiversity except for areas 

where fire in fire-adapted systems has been excluded. Depending on their size and the condition 

of the surrounding area, they may function as an essential part of a wildland block or linkage, 

especially when they are contiguous with other natural landscapes. For example, Strawberry 

Crater Wilderness is isolated, but is located near land managed by the National Park Service and 

is near Deadman Wash, which is managed for large tracts of unroaded landscape and remote 

recreational experiences (1987 Plan, page 206-87). This combination of land ownership and 

compatible objectives increases the effectiveness of a wildland block, improves connectivity, and 

is beneficial for wide-ranging or interactive species (Soulé et al. 2005). 

Alternative A lacks plan components that address connectivity between riparian areas and 

uplands, between riparian and aquatic habitats and ground water, and along streams. These 

connections are essential for properly functioning ecosystems. 

Alternative B (modified)

In contrast to alternative A, plan language in alternative B (modified) addresses connectivity of 

habitats forestwide. This alternative 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, 6; FW-Rip-AllDC- 1, 2, 3 and G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-G-2;FW-TerrERU-All-DC-3; FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-3; 

FW-WFP-DC-6, FW-WFP-G-6; and MA-AMesa-DC-3). This language would maintain or 

improve habitat permeability and mitigate effects to linkages. 

A desired condition in Roads and Facilities promotes protection of wildlife habitat and movement 

in the design of the transportation system (FW-RdsFac-DC-1) and a guideline requires managers

to design bridges, culverts, stream crossings on permanent roads, and diversion structures to 

allow safe passage for aquatic organisms (FW-RdsFac-G-9). These plan components would also 

mitigate impacts to linkages and maintain or improve permeability of habitat blocks. This 

alternative 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 (FW-WFPDC-9, FW-RdsFac-G-9). Although this could negatively impact movements of aquatic species, at 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

31

the same time it would enhance survival and reproduction and contribute to the viability of the 

native species.

Implementation of the plan components under alternative B (modified) would include wetland, 

spring, and upland soil and watershed improvement projects that promote and restore proper 

function and connectivity (FW-Rip-All-DC-3, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-RipRipType-O-1, FW-Rip-All-G-1, 2). 

Additional language in alternative B (modified) would reduce the impacts from increased uses or 

certain types of uses on the forest. These plan components would help sustain the permeability of 

wildland blocks and reduce impacts to linkages. This language includes: balancing recreational 

opportunities with the capacity of forest resources to support them and having minimal resource 

conflicts (FW-Rec-All-DC-6); managing recreation to prevent wildlife access to food, trash, and 

human waste (FW-Rec-All-G-2); 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 (FW-SpecUse-G-3). FW-Rec-Trls-G-1,3 would result in trail use remaining on 

the established trail surface, especially in high traffic or sensitive areas and few unplanned usercreated trails. 

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 (FW-SpecUse-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- G6), and designing alternative energy developments, such as wind energy, to minimize or avoid 

impact to other uses and resources, in particular wildlife (FW-SpecUse-G-11).

A desired condition in Land Adjustments describes a mostly contiguous land base that provides 

for biological diversity, retains its wildland character, and retains open space values (FW-LndAdjDC-1). Guidelines in the same section identify qualities that the forest should consider when 

evaluating lands for acquisition (lands that contribute to the continuity of wildlife and plant 

habitat; that contain or influence wetlands, riparian areas, or other water related features, or that 

contain habitat for listed or sensitive species) (FW-LndAdj-G-1). Collaboration and coordination 

with other stakeholders is critical to managing connectivity and addressing barrier issues because 

habitat, linkages, and barriers are often multi-jurisdictional and at scales larger than a single 

entity. Several management approaches are beneficial in this regard. Collaboration with partners 

and stakeholders on grassland restoration, grassland connectivity, and education is encouraged 

through a management approach for Grassland ERUs. Management approaches under Wildlife, 

Fish, and Plants and Roads and Facilities encourage working with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Wildlife Linkages Working Group, 

and others to identify linkages and barriers to wildlife movements, mitigation during project 

design, the establishment and removal of fish barriers, and improvement of wildlife movements 

across interstate highways. This could lead to utilizing products developed from other similar 

collaborations. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends three wildernesses totaling 8,732 acres: Abineau (adjoins 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness), Strawberry (an addition to the Strawberry Crater Wilderness), and 

Davey’s (an addition to the Fossil Creek Wilderness). Recommended wilderness would be 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

32

managed to maintain or enhance primitive and undeveloped characteristics, to preserve native 

species, and to have ecological systems substantially free from effects or evidence of human 

control or manipulation (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, and 3). These areas are not entirely protected from 

disturbance; however, because mechanized recreation is permitted, providing it does not detract 

from wilderness values, and motor vehicle use should only occur for limited administrative and 

permitted activities consistent with the area’s wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6, SA-RWildG-3). Motorized big game retrieval is permitted, providing it is consistent with Travel 

Management Rule decisions. Nonetheless, recommended wilderness would still remain in natural 

condition, be less disturbed than surrounding areas, and be additions to designated wilderness and 

expand wildland block or corridor areas, benefitting the associated species.

Alternative C

Alternative C has similar effects for recommended wilderness as alternative B (modified) except 

instead of 8,732 acres of recommended wilderness, there are 90,853 acres of recommended 

wilderness. The majority of acres in recommended wilderness are in Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub, Pinyon Juniper Woodland, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest, Montane Willow Riparian Forest, and Semi-desert Grassland. 

The spatial arrangement of nine of these recommended wildernesses would result in mostly 

contiguous designated or recommended wilderness from the Wet Beaver Creek Wilderness south 

to the Matazal Wilderness. Generally, these wildernesses areas are rugged and have 

comparatively few roads and human disturbances. This continuity would be particularly 

beneficial for species with large home ranges like mountain lions, one of the top predators on the 

forest. Mountain lions tend to select for rough terrain, forest, woodland or chaparral cover, lower 

road densities, and avoidance of human disturbance (USGS 2007, Nicholson et al. 2014, Van 

Dyke et al. 1986 a and b). Mountain lions have large home ranges that range from about 13,000 

to 207,000 acres for resident males, and about 7,000 to nearly 54,000 acres for resident females 

(Nicholson et al. 2014) so that large areas with the above characteristics would be most suitable 

for lions. In addition, the majority of the designated and recommended wilderness areas contain 

vegetation types favored by lions and their prey. A study by Van Dyke in 1986 suggested that 

lions most frequently crossed unimproved dirt roads, the type most likely to be found in 

recommended wilderness areas. 

Unlike alternatives A and B (modified), alternative C would have plan components in eight 

management areas that more explicitly emphasize corridors and connectivity. These management 

areas are: Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone 

Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance. The following desired condition would apply to each of 

the above management areas: “Old growth stands and riparian corridors found within this MA 

provide biologically significant cores and corridors for wildlife and fish through the landscape.” 

New guidelines would limit impacts to wildlife and associated habitats by limiting public motor 

vehicle access, limiting large group activities and large commercial tours (except for research), 

and maintaining the current area of motorized dispersed camping corridors. In addition, existing 

seasonal closures would remain largely unfragmented. These plan components would maintain or 

improve the permeability of the associated wildland blocks and linkages by reducing disturbance 

(see also the section on Motorized Vehicle Use and Disturbance).

The recreation and transportation suitability determinations for alternative C would also maintain 

permeability of wildland blocks or core areas and reduce the impacts of barriers more than the 

other alternatives because new motorized areas and new motorized trails would be not suitable in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

33

these specific management areas. Note that suitability determinations are recommendations, not 

decisions, and are subject to site-specific NEPA. 

Alternative D 

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

wilderness. 

Summary: Generally, alternative C has the most comprehensive plan language related to 

connectivity and fragmentation of all the alternatives, followed by alternatives B (modified) and 

D, than A. 

Motor Vehicle Disturbance and Disturbance in General

Stakeholders were concerned that proposed revised plan language may not fully address 

disturbance of wildlife species from motor vehicle traffic. Alternative C was developed in part to 

address this topic. Conversely, some stakeholders thought that motor vehicle use did not present a 

threat to wildlife species, except for major highways, and thought this topic was inadequately 

addressed in the DEIS. 

Human disturbance can negatively affect species in a variety of ways. 

Motorized use, people presence, and indirectly, relatively high road densities, may cause raptors 

to abandon their territories or nests (Reynolds and Reiser 1992, Squires and Reynolds 1997, 

Morrison et al. 2009, Morrison et al. 2011, Kruger 2002) or lower productivity. This has been 

noted in golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, ospreys, black hawks, and Swainson’s hawks.

(Zuberogoitia et al. 2014, Richardson et al. 1999, White and Thurow 1985, Kahl 1972, Berry 

1980, Schnell 1994, and 1998 in Sadoti 2012). Increased human activity may also result in homerange changes in raptors (Andersen et al. 1990). Individuals of certain species may tolerate 

certain types and intensities of disturbance. For example, in a study on the Kaibab Plateau, Grubb 

et al. (2013) found no evidence, based on their level of testing, that logging truck noise negatively 

affected nesting northern goshawks nor did they detect a response to general aviation aircraft. The 

authors made a point that less obvious physiological responses could have occurred and that 

different patterns in log hauling activity, changes in the proximity of goshawk nests to existing 

roads, or even different forest and terrain structure could result in different levels of response. A 

New Mexico study found no evidence that black hawks preferred nest sites farther from human 

activity than non-nests (Sadoti 2012). 

Disturbance can also negatively affect bat maternity colonies and hibernating bats. Disturbance 

can negatively impact reproductive output and/or increase energy expenditure at a time in their 

life cycle where energy and conditions for minimizing energy expenditure is at a premium. 

Disturbance can also cause them to re-locate to less suitable hibernating sites (Tuttle and 

Stevenson 1977). For example, activity levels in a bat maternity colony increased in response to 

light intensity, noise, day of season, and distance between maternity roost locations and cave 

tours (Mann et al. 2002). (Gillette and Kimbrough 1970 and McCracken 1989 in BCI 2011). Each 

arousal of hibernating bats can rob them of 10 to 30 days of stored fat reserves (Thomas et al.

1990 and Tuttle 1991 in BCI 2011. Although bats may return to torpor after disturbance, they may 

lack sufficient energy reserves to make it through the rest of the winter.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

34

Motor vehicles

Motor vehicle traffic in general can be lethal or non-lethal. Non-lethal disturbance could be a 

human related presence (wildlife watching, motorized vehicle) or sound (Frid and Dill 2002). In 

general, the magnitude of effects is influenced by the amount, type, frequency, duration, 

magnitude, location, speed, and timing of motor vehicle traffic (Steidl and Powell 2006, Loss et 

al. 2014) and associated uses could vary based on road condition, road width, road density, access 

to different destinations (such as camping areas, water and riparian areas), daily and seasonal 

timing, holiday/weekend, and values such as scenery or desirable recreation opportunities. The 

effects of motorized use and associated uses are typically of short duration however they affect 

wildlife populations adversely in both the short- and long-term (Steidl and Powell 2006). 

Potential impacts to wildlife or wildlife populations could be physiological responses (heart rate, 

stress hormones), behavior and activity budgets, or space or habitat use. Species can vary widely 

in their responses to human activities as do different populations of the same species, which can 

depend on their previous exposure to the human activity (Steidl and Powell 2006). Deer, elk, and 

pronghorn may also have physiological effects from motorized wheeled vehicle disturbance 

particularly during critical periods such as winter or breeding season. Disturbance from recreation 

result in additional energy expenditure from ungulates by increasing metabolism and heart rate 

(Canfield et al. 1999, Geist 1978). This has been confirmed for white-tailed deer (Moen et al. 

1982, Moen 1978), elk (Canfield et al. 1999) and mule deer (Freddy 1977, Weisenberger et al.

1996) and could result in increased vulnerability to predation, disease or death (Geist 1971, 

Berwick 1968, and Legg 1999). Additional disturbance-induced energy expenditure during the 

summer could occur when males are developing antlers or horns, females are lactating, and 

animals are accumulating fat reserves to over winter. 

Fahrig and Rytwinski (2009) did a review of the effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance. 

Seventy-nine studies were reviewed and they found results for 131 species and 30 species groups. 

These studies showed that amphibians and reptiles tended to be negatively affected. Birds mostly 

had negative effects or no effects although there were a few positive effects for some small birds 

and for vultures. Loss et al. (2014) found that mortality can be higher with juvenile birds, in areas 

where bird populations are abundant, and in areas with favorable bird habitat in close proximity 

to the road.

The review showed that small mammals generally showed either positive effects or no effect; 

mid-sized mammals showed either negative effects or no effect, and large mammals showed 

predominantly negative effects. Using this information and information on species characteristics, 

Fahrig and Rytwinski developed predictions of the conditions that would lead to negative or 

positive or no effects of roads on animal abundance. Species types predicted to respond 

negatively to roads were those attracted to roads and unable to avoid individual cars; species with 

large movement ranges, low reproductive rates and low natural densities; small animals whose 

populations are not limited by road-affected predators and either avoid habitat near roads due to 

traffic disturbance or either avoid habitat near roads due to traffic disturbance or do not show 

avoidance of roads or traffic disturbance and are unable to avoid oncoming cars. Species types 

predicted to respond positively to roads were those species that are attracted to roads for an 

important resource such as food and are able to avoid oncoming cars and species that do not 

avoid traffic disturbance but do avoid roads and whose main predators show negative populationlevel responses to roads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

35

Table 11 shows the possible effects by species group for roads along with the rationale for the 

effect (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). 

Table 11. Potential effect of roads or traffic disturbance on different species groups

Possible effect Species groups Rationale

Vulnerability to 

road mortality.

May reduce 

recruitment (Bury 

et al. 1977) 

Amphibians, 

reptiles, some midsized and large 

mammals

Attracted to roads or do not 

avoid roads (i.e., use roads 

for thermal regulation; roads 

resemble some other habitat 

to which they are attracted)

Vulnerability is increased for 

slow moving species and/or 

those whose behavioral 

response to traffic is to stop.

Roads overlap seasonal 

migration routes 

Higher overall 

probability of 

being killed

Animals with large 

movement ranges

Those that do not avoid roads 

may have a higher frequency 

of road crossing

May have territories with 

lower road densities even if 

they don’t avoid roads

Positive road 

effects

Animals with 

sufficient cognitive 

ability and 

movement speed to 

avoid vehicles

Food availability may be 

higher

Animals that are 

not affected by (or 

avoid) roads or 

traffic and their 

predators are 

negatively affected 

by roads

Predation pressure could be 

less for these species in 

roaded areas. Animals may 

avoid some roads due to lack 

of protective cover.

No road effects Several small birds 

and small 

mammals

Road avoidance but not 

disturbed by traffic

Small movement ranges, 

small territory size, high 

reproductive rates. Road 

mortality can be low.

Motorized use on roads may kill individuals crossing or basking on roads and over time this 

reduces recruitment, particularly with species that have long maturation times (Bury et al. 1977). 

Severe impacts have been documented for wide-ranging predators such as the cougar in southern 

California, Florida panther, ocelot, wolf, and Iberian lynx (Forman et al. 2003 in AZGFD 2013b). 

In a 4-year study of 15,000 km of road observations in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 

Rosen and Lowe (1994) in AZGFD 2013b found an average of at least 22.5 snakes per km killed 

annually due to vehicle collisions. The proportion of dead frogs and toads can increase with 

increasing traffic (Fahrig et al. 1995, Bouchard et al. 2009). 

Some wildlife species respond to motorized use by altering their use of the roadside habitat 

through avoidance or displacement. Wildlife may use roadside habitats more frequently on low 

use roads than roads with high traffic volume (Edge and Marcum 1991). Elk, deer, and bear have 

been documented to avoid roads. Habitats near the roads are less available for elk use (Rost 1975, 

Edge 1982, Lyon 1979, 1983; Edge and Marcum 1985 a and b, 1991). Mountain lions have been 

reported to avoid heavily trafficked paved highways and areas with high densities of secondary 

roads (Alexander and Waters 2000, Dickson et al. 2005, Van Dyke et al. 1986b) although they 

may favor lightly traveled unpaved roads (Dickson et al. 2005). Results from USGS’s 2007 study 

in the Flagstaff Uplands showed that paved highways were a barrier to lions. Numbers of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

36

observed highway crossings were an order of magnitude less than expected if highways did not 

exist. This applied to Interstate 40, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad line, Highway 180 

and Lake Mary Road. USGS also reported that female lions avoided a 0.5- to 2-km area near 

paved highways whereas male lions did not.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation due to roads

Roads and road use could potentially affect species occupancy in fragmented habitats and could 

cause a decline in habitat effectiveness. Some roads are barriers to the movement of some animals 

and this could affect population persistence for some but not all species. The literature indicates 

that relatively small, unpaved roads are not likely to affect populations of small mammals (Jaeger 

et al. 2005, McGregor et al. 2008, Bissonette and Rosa 2009, Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). While 

individual animals may be killed by vehicles while they are crossing the road, overall effects to 

small mammals are not likely to occur at a scale that would affect predators. 

In summary, motor vehicle traffic and/or disturbance can affect wildlife species in a variety of 

ways including death and injury, physiological responses, behavior and activity budgets, or space 

or habitat use. It can result in a decline in habitat effectiveness, failed or diminished reproduction, 

or even isolation of populations (AZGFD 2013b). The magnitude of effects is influenced by many 

factors including the amount, type, frequency, duration, magnitude, location, speed, and timing of 

motor vehicle traffic (Steidl and Powell 2006, Loss et al. 2014) and associated uses could vary 

based on road condition, road width, road density, access to different destinations (such as 

camping areas, water and riparian areas), daily and seasonal timing, holiday/weekend, and values 

such as scenery or desirable recreation opportunities. It is also influenced by the species (gender, 

age, time of year) and habitat requirements.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Beneficial plan language in all alternatives includes seasonal closures, and implementation of 

timing restrictions to reduce disturbance to federally listed species, Southwestern Region 

sensitive species, golden eagles, pronghorn and a variety of other species. This language would 

have the indirect positive effects of promoting population recruitment and survival. 

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 45,962 

acres and have 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); MA-PineBelt-DC-5, 6, 7, 8, MA-LkMary-DC-4, 

MA-PineBelt-S-1, 2, 3, 4, and MA-LkMary-S-1). In addition, the Cottonwood Basin Seasonal 

Closure area provides seasonally undisturbed habitat to protect bald eagles (1987 Plan, page 167, 

MA-VerdeV-DC-7, and S-1). 

All alternatives require that timing restrictions be applied to projects that potentially negatively 

affect federally listed species, bald eagles, golden eagles (FW-WFP-S-2), and Southwestern 

Region sensitive species and pronghorn (1987 Plan, pages 64-1, 65-11, 206-11,206-12, 206-13, 

206-67, 206-73, FW-WFP-G-8). Caves and abandoned mines used by bats would be managed to 

reduce disturbance to the species (1987 Plan page 51-1, FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-6). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

37

Plan components in alternative A specifically provide for timing restrictions around active osprey 

nests. This would reduce disturbance and promote successful reproduction (1987 Plan, page 124). 

Although the other alternatives do not specifically mention osprey, other plan language would 

have similar effects. For example, the other alternatives have a guideline to that project related 

activities with the potential to disturb active raptor nests should be restricted within a minimum of 

300 yards of these nest sites (FW-WFP-G-11). In addition, projects and management activities 

should be designed or managed to maintain or improve habitat for native species (FW-WFP-G-3). 

The 1987 Plan promotes successful reproduction and reduced disturbance by providing for uncut 

areas around active raptor nests and bald eagle roosts. The size of the uncut area varies by species 

(pages 123, 124). Plan language for the West MA (Management Area 38), would minimize 

recreation impacts to disturbance sensitive species outside the Urban/Rural Influence Zone and 

avoid or limit human disturbance to rare species such as peregrine falcons and Arizona bugbane 

(1987 Plan, pages 206-114 and 116). 

There is miscellaneous plan language in all alternatives that relate to specific places on the forest 

or specific activities that would also reduce disturbance to species. This plan language follows. 

All alternatives have guidelines that would protect the habitat for a variety of species in the 

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

and would benefit the habitat for their prey species. Alternative A includes a guideline to protect 

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

(Walnut Canyon) national monument (1987 Plan, page 206-109). Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D includes 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 list criteria that should be considered when closing a road including activities that 

cause stress or could negatively impact reproduction. When implemented, the closures could 

enhance survival, movements, and wildlife reproduction. This is a management approach in the 

Roads and Facilities section of the revised plan. See also 1987 Plan, pages 59, 206-71. 

All alternatives would restrict aircraft activities related to commercial filming to protect 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and would remind managers to work with the 

Federal Aviation Administration and air operators and administrations to minimize disturbances 

caused by aircraft over key wildlife areas. These plan components would eliminate or reduce 

aircraft-related disturbances to disturbance-sensitive species. See1987 Plan, page 206-11, and 

FW-SpecUse-G-13. A management approach in the revised plan promotes collaboration 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 designated wilderness areas of the Coconino NF. Aircraft disturbances include, but are not 

limited to, diminishing solitude and primitive recreation opportunities and disruption to key 

wildlife areas during important times of their life cycle. Examples of key wildlife areas could 

include peregrine falcon nesting sites and big game wintering habitat. Encourage aircraft 

operators to adhere to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Notice to Airmen regarding 

minimum altitudes over wilderness.

Other plan components would limit smoke from campfires in Oak Creek to protect habitat for 

bats, birds, and wildlife (1987 Plan, page 187-1; MA-OakCrk-G-10). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

38

All alternatives would provide large tracts of unroaded landscapes in Deadman Wash that would 

benefit disturbance-sensitive pronghorn and golden eagles (1987 Plan, page 206-87; MAPntdDsrt-DC-2, MA-VolcanWd-DC-4).

A guideline for all special uses would reduce disturbance by restricting land and recreation 

special use permits for activities within 200 feet of perennial streams, springs or waters that 

contribute to or support sensitive resources include federally listed or sensitive species (FWSpecUse-G-3. 

All alternatives have approximately 151,333 acres of designated wilderness which is managed to 

maintain wilderness resource values (1987 Plan, page 105, SA-Wild-DC-1, 2). Mechanized use 

and motorized use are not permitted in wilderness. Designated wildernesses are not fragmented, 

are widely distributed on the forest, generally overlap rugged terrain such as canyons, mountains, 

or cliffs, and vary in size. They are generally undisturbed by people or management activities 

except at trail heads, parking areas, and along main trails. For the most part, they would maintain 

ecological function and biodiversity except for areas where fire in fire adapted systems have been 

excluded. Depending on their size and the condition of the surrounding area, they may function as 

an essential part of a wildland block or linkage especially when they are contiguous with natural 

landscapes. Strawberry Crater Wilderness for example is isolated but is located near land 

managed by the National Park Service and near Deadman Wash (managed by Forest Service and 

National Park Service). Deadman Wash is managed for large tracts of unroaded landscape and 

remote recreational experiences (1987 Plan, page 206-87, MA-PntdDsrt-DC-2, MA-VolcanWdDC-4)). This combination of land ownership and compatible objectives increases the area of 

relatively low disturbance and is beneficial for wide-ranging or interactive species (Soulé et al.

2005) as well as the other disturbance sensitive species. 

Alternative A

Like alternative B (modified), alternative A promotes raptor survival by addressing the threat of 

collisions and electrocution of raptors by towers and powerlines, which should be constructed, or 

re-constructed, according to raptor specifications (1987 Plan page 80 and FW-SpecUse-G-5). 

However, alternative A does not address alternative energy such as wind and solar, and the impact 

of that infrastructure to raptors, or other species such as bats. 

Unlike alternative B (modified), alternative A lacks timing restrictions for golden eagles, 

therefore, golden eagle reproduction could be negatively impacted by disturbances. Negative 

impacts could include a reduced number of young or lack of reproduction in a given year. 

Alternative A would enhance or maintain survival and reproduction of wetland-nesting birds, 

deer, elk, pronghorn, turkeys, and bears through timing restrictions during the breeding season; 

however, the plan language is mostly specific to particular activities or particular areas (1987 

Plan, pages 173, 176,124-1, 126, 204, 206-51). The timing restrictions for turkey nesting and in 

bear maternity areas is for logging, timber harvesting, and slash treatments. The timing 

restrictions for wetland bird nesting habitat are for noisy activities or activities that would damage 

nests or nesting habitat. A timing restriction for sensitive big game winter range is for firewood 

cutting in pinyon juniper on less than 40 percent slope (1987 Plan, page 153). Turkey roosts 

would be protected from recreational activities, especially dispersed camping and motor vehicle 

traffic in the Schnebly Rim MA (management area 28). Disturbance-sensitive species, such as 

turkey and bear, would have reduced disturbance as a result of maintaining large tracts of 

unfragmented habitat within Semi-primitive Non-motorized ROS settings in the Schultz MA 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

39

(management area 36) (1987 Plan, page 206-105). Human disturbance to wildlife in the Lake 

Mary Watershed (management area 35) would be minimized where needed, during the critical 

times (1987 Plan, page 206-98). 

Alternative B (modified)

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) addresses alternative energy such as wind 

and solar, and the impact of that infrastructure to raptors, or other species such as bats. (FWSpecUse-G-11). Cryan and others (2014) reported an unprecedented numbers of wind turbinecaused bat fatalities with peak fatalities in low-wind conditions during late summer and autumn. 

Migratory tree bats were most affected in this study (silver-haired bats Lasionycteris noctivagans, 

Eastern red bats Lasiurus borealis, and hoary bats Lasionycteris cinereus). Silver-haired bats and 

hoary bats occur on the forest. Golden eagles have also been killed at wind energy sites and are of 

particular concern because it is a Federal offense under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

to take an eagle without a permit (USGS 2017).

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has desired conditions for cliff, caves, and talus 

slopes as generally undisturbed by human activities. This provides guidance for and better 

protects the associated species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). 

In addition, alternative B (modified) requires that projects and management activities be designed 

and implemented to maintain refugia and primary life cycle needs of Southwest 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 could reduce disturbance and 

would promote species survival and enhance reproduction. Alternative A does not specifically 

address endemic species or those with restricted distributions. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) would minimize or avoid potential impacts 

to wildlife survival, reproduction, or movements from alternative energy developments. A 

guideline requires alternative energy developments, such as for wind energy, to be designed to 

minimize or avoid impacts to other uses and resources, in particular wildlife and scenic integrity 

(FW-SpecUse-G-11).

Low-disturbance wildlife habitat is promoted on the steep slopes and other hard-to-access areas in 

the Inner Basin, Long Valley, East Clear Creek, and C.C. Cragin management areas (MA-InBsnDC-6, MA-LongV-DC-5, MA-EastClr-DC-2, and MA-CCCrg-DC-2). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has direction for timing restrictions for golden 

eagles (FW-WFP-S-2). This would reduce disturbances during the breeding season, which would 

better facilitate reproductive success and survival. 

Alternative B (modified) lacks the specific seasonal timing restrictions for wetland-nesting birds, 

elk, deer, turkey or bear that are present in alternative A. Plan components in the Wildlife, Fish, 

and Plant section have sufficient flexibility to manage for low-disturbance habitat where and 

when needed. These plan components include desired conditions that support sustainable 

populations of native plant and animal species and habitat available at appropriate spatial, 

temporal, compositional, and structural levels for a wide variety of species (FW-WFP-DC-1), that 

keep common species common (FW-WFP-DC-2), that provide the necessary habitat components 

for carrying out key life cycle needs (FW-WFP-DC-3). Forest plan guidelines require 

management activities to comply with strategies, national guidelines, conservation agreements 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

40

and assessments to improve the status of species (FW-WFP-G-2) to maintain or improve habitat 

for native species (FW-WFP-G-3); to have movement corridors and pronghorn habitat free of 

impediments to movements (FW-WFP-G-6), and to have the locations of new road and new trail 

locations meet species life history requirements (FW-WFP-G-13). A guideline in the section for 

All Recreation requires recreational activities, locations, and/or settings to be managed to be in 

balance with the capacity of other resources to support them and to prevent wildlife access to 

food, trash, and human waste (FW-Rec-All-G-2). 

Alternative B (modified) has a guideline in Wildlife, Fish, and Plants that would reduce small 

bird entrapments in open top vertical pipes. This threat was not recognized when the current plan 

was written, but was recognized by Brattstrom (1995) and again by Hathcock and Fair (2014). 

This guideline should reduce unnecessary mortality to small birds, which are prey for a variety of 

mammals and raptors, when they fall into open pipes and cannot escape. 

Alternative B (modified) differs from alternative A because it recommends three wildernesses: 

Abineau (adjoins Kachina Peaks Wilderness), Strawberry (an addition to the Strawberry Crater 

Wilderness), and Davey’s (an addition to the Fossil Creek Wilderness). 

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

characteristics, to preserve native species, and to have ecological systems substantially free from 

effects or evidence of human control or manipulation (SA-RWild-DC-1-3). These areas are not 

entirely protected from disturbance because mechanized recreation is permitted, providing it does 

not detract from wilderness values and motor vehicle use should only occur for limited 

administrative and permitted activities consistent with the area’s wilderness character (SA-RWildDC-6, SA-RWild-G-3). Motorized big game retrieval is permitted providing it is consistent with 

Travel Management Rule decisions. Nonetheless, recommended wilderness would remain in 

natural condition, be less disturbed than surrounding areas, have less soil compaction, less 

accelerated erosion, less vegetation damage from motorized activities, and be additions to 

designated wilderness and expand wildland block or corridor areas, benefitting the associated 

species. This could promote survival and reproduction of plant and animal populations in 

localized areas, provide access to suitable habitat, as well as provide more contiguous low 

disturbance habitat for species with larger home ranges like big game.

Although these wildernesses are not contiguous with or close to one another, the combination of 

these recommended wildernesses with already existing wildernesses would expand areas of 

relatively low disturbance in these localized areas. 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the least disturbance to wildlife habitat of any alternative. It has the same 

effects as alternative B (modified) except there are eight management areas with reduced 

disturbance, a total of 13 recommended wildernesses, and areas not suitable for recreational 

shooting and not suitable for snowmobiling. 

Eight management areas (Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll 

Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance) would reduce disturbance from 

motorized traffic by reducing public access, prohibiting large group recreation events and large 

commercial tours except in developed sites (excluding research), and by having no net increase in 

the area of designated motorized dispersed camping corridors. These management areas total 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

41

335,371 acres. Motor vehicle traffic would be reduced in these management areas, but not 

eliminated because administrative or permitted uses could still occur. 

A unique aspect of alternative C is that some areas would not suitable for recreational shooting. 

Recreational shooting is non-hunting shooting (like target practice) and the purpose is to reduce 

noise and the associated human activity. The areas not suitable for recreational shooting are: 

recommended and existing 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. Some portions of the Flagstaff Neighborwoods proximal to private property 

may also be not suitable for recreational shooting, depending on other factors such as existing 

laws, municipal regulation, or site-specific NEPA decisions. 

About 216,037 acres on the forest are already subject to shooting restrictions and this is common 

to all alternatives. Such areas include recreational shooting within 150 yards from residences, 

buildings, campsites, developed recreation sites and occupied areas as well as across or on a 

National Forest System road or body of water adjacent to a National Forest System road (USDA 

Forest Service 2016f). 

Alternative C could classify an additional 492,595 acres as not suitable for recreational shooting 

for a total of 708,632 acres on the forest; however, this would be subject to site-specific 

environmental analysis. The extent, intensity, and frequency of recreational shooting (and the 

associated disturbance) are assumed to be variable across these nearly 500,000 acres. There 

would be a generally contiguous not suitable area along the eastern side of the forest from Walnut 

Canyon south to the forest boundary and south central in the Long Valley MA. Restrictions on 

recreational shooting could result in reduced disturbance to wildlife in these areas depending on 

the wildlife species present, species behavior, home range, time of year, type of weapon used, 

duration of use, topography, and other variables. 

Only alternative C has suitability determinations for snowmobile use. In alternative C, the Walnut 

Canyon MA, and areas classified as semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive ROS classes 

would not be suitable for snowmobile use. This is in addition to areas with forest closure orders 

and areas outside of wilderness. This represents about 13 percent of the forest according to the 

Recreation Report (USDA Forest Service 2016f). Subsequent site-specific environmental analysis

would be required to officially close areas to snowmobiling. Disturbance would be reduced in the 

restricted areas compared to areas outside the restricted areas. The effect on individuals of 

particular species would be vary depending on a variety of factors such as location of the activity 

relative to area used by the species during that time of year (for example, near a bald eagle winter 

roost) or the ecology of the species (for example, are bats hibernating in a nearby cave? Does the 

species migrate? Is the area used for foraging by raptors or is the use occurring during the early 

part of the breeding season (February for some species)?). Other factors could be the intensity, 

frequency, and timing of use, and snowfall in any given year. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

42

Alternative D 

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

wilderness.

Summary: Generally, alternative C has the lowest disturbance, followed by alternatives B 

(modified) and D, then A.

Disturbance (plants)

Plants and their habitats may be damaged, degraded, destroyed, or altered by activities or uses

that occur on Forest Service administered lands. Disturbances such as uncharacteristic wildfire, 

vegetation management, prescribed fire, or road building can degrade native plant communities 

and lead to the loss of individual plants. Motorized vehicles and mechanized forms of 

transportation can also damage plants and their habitat. These could include motorized equipment 

used to conduct management activities or permitted uses, recreational vehicles, all terrain cargo 

transports, mountain bikes, or other equipment. The following habitats have moderate to high 

departures (in fair to poor condition) from reference conditions: Cottonwood Willow Riparian 

Forest, Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub, Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire, and Spruce-Fir (see the Vegetation and Fire, and Riparian Areas sections of 

volume I of the FEIS). These departures increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire, flooding, and 

accelerated erosion within the habitats themselves. These departed habitats can also pose 

additional risks to the watersheds in which they occur because uncharacteristic fire or flooding in 

the watershed could also negatively affect adjacent ERUs that are in good condition. Although 

native species and their habitats would be adapted to a natural range of disturbance and variability 

in their environments, uncharacteristic disturbances could create higher levels of disturbance for 

all of the habitats and plants within them to which they may be poorly adapted. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

The Ponderosa Pine ERU has experienced many of the vegetation treatments, uncharacteristic 

fires, wildfires managed for resource objectives, and prescribed fire treatments across the forest.

Ponderosa Pine ERU would improve to fair condition and trend toward desired conditions under 

all alternatives. Under the low treatment objectives (50,000 acres mechanical, 150,000 acres 

prescribed burn), the Ponderosa Pine ERU would improve over the existing condition of poor by 

trending toward desired conditions and would reach fair condition in the long term. The improved 

vegetation structure and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and flooding 

and create conditions in which characteristic fire would be more likely to occur. The risk of 

uncharacteristic disturbance to associated plants would also decrease. 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. There is also an estimated 135,000 acres treated using naturally ignited fires for resource 

objectives during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. See FW-TerrERU-PP-O-1, 2, 3. 

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. Short-term effects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

43

to plants would include potential loss of individuals and disturbance to habitat in treated areas, 

but treatments will move the areas toward the desired conditions. 

Ground-disturbing activities create favorable conditions for the establishment of non-native 

invasive plants. Invasive plants compete with native species for resources and can alter 

community structure, soil productivity, fire regime, and can contribute to accelerated erosion, all 

of which are detrimental to native plant communities. 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 and 2, FW 

Invas- G- 1, 2, -3, FW-Invas-MgtApp, FW-Graz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, 

FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). In alternative B (modified), C, and D, there are two management approaches 

that are particularly helpful for control of non-native invasive plants in the specialized habitats 

occupied by some of the species on the forest. These management approaches prioritize inventory 

and control for areas such as rare habitats, wilderness, research natural areas, botanical areas, wild 

and scenic areas, and riparian areas to maintain and restore the integrity of native species and 

ecosystems.

Roads can contribute to disturbance for plants by directly crushing plants, degrading habitat, 

causing soil loss, or increasing the risk of non-native invasive plant invasions. All alternatives 

would close or decommission unneeded roads, seasonally close wet roads when needed, construct 

roads with adequate drainage, and implement soil and water best management practices (1987 

Plan, pages 71, 72, 72-1, 88, 91 FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 6). All alternatives can use temporary roads 

in lieu of constructing new roads and would close them after use (1987 Plan, page 89, FWRdsFac-DC-3). Implementation of these plan components could crush or damage individual 

plants or plant populations, but in the long term, implementation would benefit plants through 

reducing disturbance to plants by reducing accelerated soil erosion, loss of vegetation, 

degradation of water quality, and long-term impacts to soil productivity. 

Recreation-related activities can also trample or crush plants, facilitate accelerated soil erosion, 

compact the soil, or otherwise impact plant habitat. All alternatives have plan components that 

would benefit plants by reducing ground disturbance in particular areas or by particular uses. All 

alternatives would reduce ground disturbance from motorized vehicle use by requiring vehicles to 

remain on a designated system of roads, trails, or areas as defined on motor vehicle use maps 

(1987 Plan, page 58, FW-Rec-Disp-S-1, FW-RdsFac-S-1). Ground disturbance would be reduced 

in the Deadman Wash area because large tracts of land would remain unroaded (1987 Plan, page 

206-87, MA-PntdDsert-DC-2, MA-VolcanWd-DC-4) and ground disturbance would be reduced 

in the Woody Ridge area because it is closed year-round to motorized use (1987 Plan, page 206-

114, MA-PineBelt-DC-8, S-4). Ground disturbance from recreational activities would be reduced 

in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness and Inner Basin by limiting horse and pack stock use, 

recreational livestock, overnight camping, new trail construction, and off trail use in snow-free 

periods (1987 Plan, pages 90, 108, 110, FW-MA Peaks-S-3, MA-InBsn-S-1, SA-Wild-S-4, S-5). 

Ground disturbance from horse and pack stock use would also be limited on the portion of the 

Oldham Trail between Buffalo Park, the El Paso natural gas pipeline, and on the West Fork of 

Oak Creek Trail (1987 Plan pages 90, 119, MA-FlagN-S-1, MA-MtElden-S-1, and MA-OakCrkS-6). Established and proposed research natural areas would have little evidence of human 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

44

activities and disturbance (1987 Plan, pages 194, 195, 196-1, SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1), except the 

lower end of the Oak Creek RNA in the lower part of West Fork would have higher recreational 

use and disturbance. In addition, all alternatives would locate trails and recreation to reduce 

impacts to vegetation, woody riparian vegetation, and riparian habitat in West Fork and Oak 

Creek (1987 Plan, pages 108-2, 187, FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11, G-1, G-3; MA-OakCrk-G-5). 

All alternatives would manage the Cinder Hills Off-Highway Vehicle area (about 13,000 acres) 

for off-trail motorized recreation. Vegetation is present, but naturally scarcer than other areas 

with different soil types. Considerable ground disturbance from off-trail vehicles damages 

individual plants or populations within the area, but focuses off-trail use in one area rather than it 

being spread over a larger area (1987 Plan, pages 178-183; MA-VolcanWd-DC-3). 

Disturbance can also be a side effect of plant collecting. All alternatives prohibit commercial 

plant collection in portions of the Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem (1987 Plan) or Red Rock, Oak 

Creek, and Sedona Neighborwoods Management Areas (proposed revised plan). See 1987 Plan, 

page 206-11, FW-FProd-G-4, MA-RedRock-S-6, MA-OakCrk-S-1, MA-SedN-S-1. This 

restriction would eliminate ground disturbance from this activity and would protect native plant 

species from over-collection. 

All alternatives would incorporate management plans and recovery plans for Flagstaff pennyroyal 

and San Francisco Peaks ragwort. The proposed revised plan directs managers to incorporate 

habitat management and species protection measures from approved recovery plans (FW-WFP-G1). This is beneficial for the ragwort. The recovery plan for the San Francisco Peaks ragwort 

incorporates the Alpine Management Plan (1987 Plan, page 65). All alternatives would follow the 

management plan for Flagstaff pennyroyal (1987 Plan, page 95). The proposed revised plan also 

directs managers to comply with species assessments and strategies that would include the 

management plan for Flagstaff pennyroyal (FW-WFP-G-2). 

Alternative A

Recreational activities can contribute to disturbance to plants and habitat. There is guidance for 

disturbance to plants and habitat in alternative A, but as described under All Alternatives above, 

most plan components focus on specific areas or specific activities.

Alternative A has management direction in the Sedona/Oak Creek ecosystem and in the Flagstaff 

Lake Mary Ecosystem to discourage unneeded trail or social trails that can cause erosion or plant 

loss (1987 Plan, page 206-26, 206-68), but lacks this direction for the rest of the forest. This 

leaves managers without a consistent approach and vision on how to address social trails. 

Alternative B (modified)

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) is replete with forestwide direction related to 

disturbance to plants. For alternative B (modified), the forestwide plan components in All 

Ecosystems, Soil, Biophysical Features, Water and Watersheds, Riparian Areas, Wetlands, 

Springs, All Terrestrial ERUs, and in each ERU are designed to promote properly functioning and 

resilient ecosystems and watersheds, address departure, promote natural disturbances, and 

maintain or move toward more sustainable ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, and 4, FW-Soil-DC1, 2, 3, 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC 1 and 2) FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1, FW-Water-DC-1, 2, 3, 6, FWRip-All-DC-1, 5, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1, FWTerrERU-DC-DC-1, 3, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-MC-AllDC-1, FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1-4, FW-TerrERU-AT-DC-1). This includes addressing vegetation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

45

departure through appropriate treatments and reintroduction of fire into departed ecosystems. It is 

assumed that all of the plants addressed in this FEIS that occur in the fire-adapted ecosystems 

across the forest are adapted to fire as well, but data supporting this assumption are limited. Based 

on this assumption and data available, it is assumed that the re-introduction of natural 

disturbances such as fire will benefit these species in the long term, but may result in short-term 

loss of individuals. 

Desired conditions and guidelines in alternative B (modified) would reduce disturbance by 

promoting vegetative ground cover, stable soils, biological crusts, undisturbed geological 

features, and characteristic disturbances (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1, FW-Water-G-1, 4, FW-RipSpr-G-3, FW-Soil-DC-3,4). Desired conditions acknowledge that localized short-term accelerated 

soil erosion may occur following high-severity fires, but not to the extent of risking long-term 

impairment of soil productivity (FW-Soil-DC-5). Project design features would avoid disturbance 

that would result in long-term impacts to soil function and productivity, especially on particularly 

vulnerable soils and slopes. Guidelines would promote litter and plant cover to resist erosion and 

compaction, to stabilize banks, and to ensure plant recovery following burning, mechanical 

treatments, and mineral or mining activities (FW-Soil-G-2, 3, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-3, 4, FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-5, G-2, FW-TerrERU-IC-G-1, FW-Graz-G-3, and FW-Minerals-DC-1). 

Other plan components would reduce disturbance by not issuing land recreation special use 

permits for activities within 200 feet of waters that support sensitive resources (FW-SpecUse-G3). 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has forestwide language that addresses 

recreation, social trails, and disturbance. The language would result in recreational activities and 

locations being managed to be in balance with the capacity of other resources to support them and 

to move toward desired conditions for other resources (FW-Rec-All-DC-6, G-1 and 2, MAVerdeV-G-2). Plan components would also require that unplanned, user-created trails be managed 

to prevent future access and that damaged resources be rehabilitated (FW-Rec-Trails-G-3). These 

plan components would maintain and enhance habitat for plant species at the forestwide level and 

assist managers in addressing widespread impacts from the increasing number of visitors.

Rare plant populations would be maintained and disturbance reduced with the implementation of 

a guideline in Wildlife, Fish, and Plants that encourages seed collection and cuttings rather than 

whole plant removal (with limited exceptions) (FW-WFP-G-15). 

Three recommended wildernesses in alternative B (modified) could both reduce and increase the 

likelihood of ground disturbance for plants. Recommended wilderness could reduce the 

likelihood of ground disturbance by maintaining or enhancing primitive and undeveloped 

characteristics, preserving native species, and emphasizing ecological systems substantially free 

from effects or evidence of human control or manipulation (SA-RWild-DC-1-3). Mechanized 

recreation is permitted unless recommended wilderness become designated providing it does not 

detract from wilderness values. Motor vehicle use is permitted (until it is designated as 

wilderness) only for limited administrative and permitted activities consistent with the area’s 

wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6, SA-RWild-G-3). Motorized big game retrieval is 

permitted providing it is consistent with Travel Management Rule decisions. Recommended

wilderness would be less disturbed than surrounding areas. In contrast, limitations on motorized 

use could limit the activities or tools to restore habitat where needed and could subsequently 

increase the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances. Uncharacteristic disturbances could create 

higher levels of disturbance to which plants and their habitats may be poorly adapted. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

46

Alternative C

Alternative C has the least disturbance to plants of any alternative. It has the same effects as 

alternative B (modified) except there are 8 management areas that emphasize reduced humanrelated disturbance and 13 recommended wildernesses. 

Eight management areas (Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll 

Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, and Second Chance) would reduce public motorized access 

in some areas, prohibit large group recreation events and large commercial tours except in 

developed sites (excluding research), and have no net increase in the area of designated motorized 

dispersed camping corridors. These management areas total 335,371 acres. Motor vehicle traffic 

would be reduced but not eliminated in these management areas, because administrative or 

permitted uses could still occur. If this alternative is selected, subsequent environmental analysis

would need to be done for these restrictions to take effect. 

Alternative D

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

wilderness.

Non-native or Invasive Species

Stakeholders expressed concern that the existing forest plan does not fully address non-native or 

invasive animals or plants, including disease. Commenters asked that forest plan language be 

revised to address non-native or invasive animals (including pathogens and invertebrates) and 

grasses. 

Invasive exotic species, including plants, invertebrates, animals, pathogens, and diseases, are a 

primary threat to most terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems and the associated species on 

Coconino NF. They can influence and significantly disrupt the composition and structure of 

ecosystems as well as natural processes including fire return intervals, soil stability, and 

ecosystem hydrology. They also eat, infect, compete with, and hybridize with native species and 

can significantly alter species diversity. 

Affected Environment 

Invasive plants were identified as a threat to terrestrial ecosystems in the Analysis of the 

Management Situation (AMS) (2010) and were included in the assessment of departure from 

reference condition (see Ecological Sustainability Report, USDA Forest Service 2009a). Almost 

every ERU is impacted by non-native or invasive plants. The only notable exception is the Alpine 

Tundra ERU where there are no documented occurrences of non-native or invasive plants. 

Every 5th code watershed on the Coconino NF that supports native fish species contains nonnative or invasive aquatic species. Table 32 in the Ecological Sustainability Report compares the 

number of native fish species and the number of non-native fish species by watershed (USDA 

Forest Service 2009a). Nearly every habitable stream on the Coconino NF currently contains nonnative or invasive fish, amphibians, and crayfish. These non-native or invasive species prey on 

and/or compete with native species, can spread disease and parasites, and can alter the 

composition and structure of the aquatic and riparian environment. Chytrid fungus has been found 

on the forest and it is deadly to amphibians. White-nose syndrome has killed millions of bats and 

although it has not been reported on the forest, it has been moving across the United States in 

recent years. An exotic spruce aphid has been found in spruce-fir, which has the potential to kill a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

47

significant proportion of Engelmann spruce trees. White pine blister rust is a potential threat to 

white pines, such as bristlecone pines, on the forest and has been found on other national forests 

in Arizona.

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives

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; FW Invas-G- 1, 2, 3; FW-Invas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). Disturbance increases the risk of non-native invasive 

plant spread and establishment. Disturbance is addressed in the section on Disturbance to Plants 

above. 

All alternatives allow for the installation of stream barriers to separate native species from nonnative or invasive species based on site-specific analysis (1987 Plan, page 175 and FW-WFP-DC9). 

Alternative A

Like the other alternatives, this alternative promotes prevention, containment, control, or 

eradication of non-native invasive plants, depending on invasiveness and risk, and incorporation 

of control measures into projects (1987 Plan, page 23, 69, 206-76). It incorporates the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds through 

Amendment 20 (1987 Plan, pages 69 and 69-1). It also promotes control and eradication of nonnative and invasive plants in the Cinder Hills OHV area (1987 Plan, page 182). These plan 

components would reduce the abundance and distribution of new and existing non-native or 

invasive plant species. Plan components only address Forest Service administrative and permitted 

activities and lack direction on how managing public forest user activities contribute to this 

threat.

Alternative A would address the risk of exotic spruce aphid 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, 

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). 

Alternative A lacks forestwide plan components that address aquatic weeds, invasive or nonnative grasses, invasive or non-native animal species, and disease (other than diseases that affect 

tree species). Since Amendment 20, the abundance and distribution of invasive or non-native 

grasses such as red brome (Bromus rubens) have increased in many of the ERUs. Red brome and 

other non-native annual grasses provide copious amounts of fine fuel in ecosystems that are not 

fire-adapted and shorten the fire return intervals in fire-adapted ecosystems. The resulting more 

frequent or uncharacteristic fires contribute to the departure of these ERUs from desired 

conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

48

Even though plan components under alternative A provide for some guidance for non-native 

aquatic species control; the quality of aquatic species habitats will continue to remain stable or 

decline because the plan direction does not apply forestwide. Control of the impacts of non-native 

plant and animal species and discouraging the introduction of new non-natives is advocated under 

alternative A (1987 Plan, pages 206-9, 206-72), but mainly in the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Area and Sedona/Oak Creek Area. 

Alternative A also has language to cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 

evaluating proposals for re-introducing extirpated species into suitable habitat, on fish stocking 

and public access for fishing, and to prevent and/or remove unapproved introduced or invasive 

species (1987 Plan, page 65-12). 

Although the language in all alternatives supports managing for sustainable populations of native 

animal species, alternative A lacks forestwide language that directly addresses the major threats of 

disease and invasive, non-native animals. Because of this, alternative A has a lower viability 

effectiveness than the other alternatives. 

Alternative B (modified) 

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 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-InvasDC-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. 

Alternative B (modified) emphasizes native species more than alternative A and addresses native 

species throughout the plan as a sustainable aspect of different ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-DCDC-4, FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-IC-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-4 and 9, FWTerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1, FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC–2, FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1, FW-TerrERUAT-DC-2, FW-WFP-DC-1, FW-WFP-DC-3). A desired condition in the Invasive Species section 

advocates invasive species at levels that do not disrupt ecological composition, structure, and 

function; do not affect the sustainability of native and desirable non-native species; and do not 

disrupt the natural fire regime (FW-Inv-DC-1). Native species and their habitat are supported by 

language throughout the plan (FW-Eco-DC-1, FW-Water-DC-6 and G-6, Fw-Rip-Strm-G-1, FWRip-Wtlnds-DC-1 and 2, FW-Rip-Spr-DC-2 and G-3, FW-Rip-RipType-DC-2, 6, and G-2, FWTerrERU-All-G-3, and in various ERUs, FW-RdsFac-G-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, SA-RWild-DC-3, 

SA-WSR-DC-3), and are part of the monitoring plan (Questions 12 and 13). This emphasis on 

native species and natural processes builds resiliency and addresses the uncharacteristic 

disturbances that may lead to increased risk of invasion. Alternative B (modified) would better 

address the threat of exotic spruce aphid and the resulting loss of spruce that would alter 

vegetative composition and structure and increase the risk of fire in the Spruce-Fir ERU. 

A desired condition in the section on developed recreation has a goal that non-native or invasive 

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

these high-use areas of the forest (FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9). A guideline in the same section requires 

managers to control invasive species at these sites before they become established and 

widespread (FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). These components would help protect the natural habitats at 

recreation sites across the forest while addressing non-native or invasive species. A wildlife 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

49

guideline requires the use of established protocols to prevent the introduction and spread of 

disease (including chytrid fungus that kills amphibians) (FW-WFP-G-12). 

Non-native grasses are problematic in the desert ecosystems on the forest. Forestwide desired 

conditions for interior chaparral and grasslands incorporate guidance for these non-natives. FWTerrERU-IC-DC-3 and FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2 state that invasive plants do not alter the fire 

regime or facilitate the spread, intensity, or severity of uncharacteristic fire in these ERUs. This 

guidance is important for these areas and is absent from alternative A. This guidance would help 

reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbance, which can lead to increased risk of invasion, 

while addressing departure in these unique ecosystems. 

Roads can be corridors for invasive plant introduction. Forestwide guidance for roads focuses on 

maintaining an adequate transportation system while addressing the desired conditions for other 

resources. Forestwide guidance for roads (FW-RdsFac-G-8) provides for naturalization of 

temporary roads, while reducing potential impacts such as possible introduction of invasive 

species. This and other guidance would reduce the threat of non-native or invasive plants from 

roads. 

In contrast to alternative A, desired conditions for Spruce-Fir in alternative B (modified) seek 

levels of disturbance by invasive animals that are comparable to the outcomes of more 

characteristic insect disturbance (FW-Veg-SF-DC-2, 4, 5). Rather than focusing on the cause of 

the disturbance, the desired conditions focus on acceptable levels of declining trees, snags, and 

resilience to disturbance within the ERU. As a result, these alternatives would better provide for 

the viability of species associated with this ERU because they characterize that the disturbance 

may change over time, but set desired conditions for what outcomes provide for habitat 

conditions conducive to supporting associated species. 

Other sections of the revised forest plan address disease in caves that could potentially affect 

cave-dwelling species like bats (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-3; FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-6), diseases that 

can be transmitted between domestic and wild sheep (FW-Graz-G-8, 9), and disease and nonnative or invasive species specifically in the Inner Basin and Verde Valley management areas 

(MA-InBsn-G-2, MA-VerdeV-G-1). 

Management approaches in Invasive Species remind managers to coordinate with stakeholders 

and the public to reduce or eliminate the potential or existence of non-native or invasive species

as well as to encourage the prevention of accidental introduction and spread of invasive species 

carried by contaminated vehicles, equipment, people, or materials. A management approach in 

Geological Resources reminds managers to “educate the public about the unique ecological and 

aesthetic value of biophysical features including safety, etiquette, disease prevention, and 

resource protection.” 

Alternative B (modified) recommends 8,733 acres of proposed wilderness. These additional acres 

are additions to three existing wilderness areas. The Strawberry Crater (6,579 acres) and Abineau 

(415 acres) recommended wilderness areas are additions to the existing Strawberry Crater and 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness Areas, and the Davey’s (1,739 acres) recommended wilderness area is 

an addition to the existing Fossil Springs Wilderness. The Davey’s recommended wilderness area

is in a remote area that currently receives low visitation and has minimal impacts from 

management activities and roads. These recommended wildernesses will have minimal overall 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

50

effect on the treatment of invasive species on the forest because the individual recommended 

wilderness areas adjoin existing wilderness and the overall area is relatively small.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except it has 335,371 acres of 

reduced public access or restrictions on large groups in certain areas of the forest (Anderson 

Mesa, Blue Ridge, Hospital Ridge, Jack’s Canyon, Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, Pine Grove, 

and Second Chance Management Areas). People, equipment, and vehicles can spread or introduce 

some invasive plants or animals, and disease. Alternative C would reduce the potential for 

introduction or spread of non-native species and disease in these management areas because of 

these restrictions. This alternative would not eliminate the potential for spread or introduction 

because invasive species and disease could be spread or introduced through administrative or 

permitted activities, as well, but would reduce the risk of non-native invasive plant introduction 

and dispersal by vehicle traffic on roadways because public use in these areas would be restricted 

or eliminated. 

Alternative C also differs from alternative B (modified) because there are 13 recommended 

wildernesses in this alternative totaling 90,852 acres. These areas occur through several ERUs 

and management areas. Currently, management of these areas is no different than adjacent areas 

that will not be included. Control of non-native or invasive species is the same across all areas. If 

these areas become designated wilderness, control of non-native or invasive species would need 

to comply with regulations currently applicable to wilderness. For example, no motorized 

vehicles could be used in the areas and herbicide treatments would need a higher level of 

approval. Alternately, approval of these recommended wilderness areas would eliminate 

mechanized and motorized travel except in emergency situations, which would eliminate the risk 

of introduction and dispersal of non-native or invasive species by vehicle travel. Management 

activities such as timber harvest would be eliminated from these areas, which would reduce the 

risk of introduction or spread of non-native or invasive plants. Management actions that would 

address departure in some of the ERUs promote resiliency may also occur in some of these areas. 

Alternative D

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

At-risk Species

Some stakeholders were concerned that plan language does not fully address the needs for at-risk 

species and should be updated to do so. Some species may require plan components associated 

with their habitat, while others may need species-specific plan components. Plan language should 

address management of habitat and point to conservation agreements, both of which may 

preclude listing of proposed or candidate species. 

At-risk species include threatened or endangered species, or those proposed for listing, Forest 

Service sensitive species, endemic species, or those with restricted distributions. Some species are 

naturally rare and the intent of management is not to make them more common. Rarity can 

assume different forms. Some species are geographically widespread, but never abundant in any 

location, such as ferns and orchids. These species tend to have large ranges and may occur in 

several habitats, but have consistently low population numbers in areas where they occur 

(Rabinowitz 1981). Endemic species have a small geographic range, but can be abundant with the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

51

range (Rabinowitz 1981). Many endemic plants on the forest are in this second category. Other 

species may be known from only a few locations with only a few individuals known from within 

those locations, such as some aquatic invertebrates. 

Limitation to certain soil types is a driving factor for rare plants on the forest. These are known as 

edaphic endemics and include many rare plant species discussed in this FEIS including the 

federally endangered Arizona cliffrose and other species that occur only on Verde Formation

soils; Sunset Crater beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup and serrate phacelia that occur cinder 

soils of the Sunset Crater Volcanic field, and Rusby’s milkvetch that is known only from the San 

Francisco Peaks volcanic field. The limitation of particular species to certain soil types may help 

them escape competition from more common related species (Anderson 1996). 

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives

All alternatives would contribute to species viability and the recovery of the listed species with 

the following plan language. Plan components in all alternatives support managing for sustainable 

populations of native plant and animal species, contributing to the survival and recovery of listed 

species, and allowing for the repatriation of extirpated species (1987 Plan, page22-1; FW-WFPDC-1, 2). All alternatives have a standard such that direction for species listed as threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or candidate take precedence over direction for species not listed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as direction to comply with approved recovery plans (1987 

Plan, page 64; FW-WFP-S-1; FW-WFP-G-1, 2). Alternative A has a goal to manage habitat to 

maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species (1987 Plan, page 22-1). Other goals are to 

improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and 

other species as they become threatened or endangered; to work toward recovery and delisting of 

threatened and endangered species; and to identify and protect areas that contain threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species of plants and animals (1987 Plan, pages 23, 66, 206-9, and FWWFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5). 

All alternatives have language that would improve conditions for Southwestern Region sensitive 

species and would support and provide habitat and potentially suitable habitat for viable, selfsustaining populations (1987 Plan, pages11-1, 23-1; FW-WFP-DC-1-9). 

The concept of rarity can also be applied to entire plant communities (Izco 1998). Within the 

National Forest System, these rare communities can receive special designation such as in 

botanical areas. There are four botanical areas designated on the forest. The Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area protects a unique high-elevation riparian community where Bebb’s willow is the 

dominant species. Verde Valley Botanical Area protects the habitat of Arizona cliffrose, its unique 

associated plant community and soil type (Verde Formation). The Mogollon Rim Botanical Area 

is an example of the white fir/bigtooth maple community that occurs along the Mogollon Rim. 

The Fossil Springs Botanical Area is the smallest and protects deciduous riparian forest 

associated with a perennial spring. 

All alternatives have protective language for botanical areas (1987 Plan, page 193, SARNABotGeo-DC 5-6). Plan language promotes management that would maintain, as nearly as 

possible, existing conditions, unique characteristics, and natural processes for public enjoyment, 

demonstration, and study. This guidance would have beneficial effects for the botanical resources 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

52

in these areas by maintaining or enhancing the survival, reproduction, or habitat for the associated 

species.

All alternatives have plan objectives or management emphasis to improve or restore riparian 

ecosystems (1987 Plan, pages 23, 172-177; FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1, FW-Rip-Spr-O-1, FW-RipRipType-O-1, and FW-WFP-O-4) and promote the use of best management practices to maintain 

or improve water quality (1987 Plan pages 71 and 72-1; FW-Water-G-4, FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8, 

FW-Soil-G-1). Plan language in alternative A promotes implementation of filter strips to maintain 

natural processes and riparian composition and structure, while alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D update this language by providing for aquatic management zones to protect water quality and 

to avoid detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, sediment deposits, or 

blockages (1987 Plan, pages 71 and 72; FW-Rip-All-G-3, FW-Rip-Strm-G-2). These plan 

components would maintain or improve water conditions, habitat for aquatic and riparian species 

(many of which are either federally listed or Forest Service sensitive), and connected downstream 

resources. This is beneficial for aquatic and riparian at-risk species. 

All alternatives would contribute to species viability, especially edaphic endemics, with language 

that maintains soil quality and function (1987 Plan, page 23; FW-Soil-DC-1, 2, 3 and 4). 

Non-native or invasive species are a major threat because they can compete or hybridize with 

native species, feed on them, spread disease or parasites, and significantly disrupt ecosystems. 

See Non-native or Invasive Species in the section on Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics for 

discussion on this topic.

By law and policy, all alternatives would evaluate potential impacts to species and habitats using 

a biological assessment and projects would consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when 

needed. The evaluation and consultation would result in various measures intended to mitigate or 

remove impacts to the species and habitat. Alternative A has this as plan language on page 65. 

The other alternatives strive to not repeat policy or laws in the plan. There is no difference 

between alternatives. 

Alternative A

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, pages 65, 206-10), but lacks this direction for other species. 

Alternative A would suppress fires that threaten habitat of threatened and endangered, or sensitive 

species (1987 Plan, page 95). Fires can result in habitat loss and damage, and plant and animal 

mortality or injury. Fire suppression is intended to reduce the effect of fire on habitat; 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. Fire suppression has also resulted in 

missed fire return intervals in fire-adapted ecosystems, which, over time, has resulted in altered 

composition structure (high densities of trees), and can ultimately increase the vulnerability of 

habitat to future fires.

Some direction that specifically focuses on associated rare plants is limited to only certain 

management areas. Reasons for closing areas in the Cinder Hills OHV area may include locations 

of sensitive plants such as Sunset Crater beardtongue. Another guideline would make necessary 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

53

adjustments to this area to ensure the continued existence of this endemic plant (1987 Plan, pages 

180 and 182). This would be beneficial for the species, but may not address all occurrences of 

this plant. 

Alternative A is limited in terms of its overall ability to positively affect threatened and 

endangered species because it lacks clear desired conditions, standards, and guidelines developed 

using the best available science, and some direction is outdated. Alternative A does not reflect 

some of the changes in social, economic, and ecological conditions that have occurred since it 

was signed, and as a result, is the least able of the alternatives to adapt to changing conditions. It 

does not specifically address climate change issues and recommends no new wilderness. 

Alternative A has more prescriptive guidance for the management of old-growth forest than the 

other alternatives.and is focused more on the stand level, rather than collectively across the 

landscape. This approach does not reflect natural disturbance regimes and could negatively 

impact forest-dependent species like the Mexican spotted owl by putting forested ERUs at greater 

risk from stand-replacing fire or uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects or disease. Alternative A 

also lacks forestwide language that directly addresses the significant threats of disease and 

invasive, non-native animals. At a minimum, species viability will be maintained, but ecosystem 

recovery will be on a slower, and less focused trajectory than for the action alternatives. 

Alternative B (modified)

Unlike 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) 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).

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; however, rather 

than restrict this to a few species, alternative B (modified) expands this direction via a forestwide 

guideline to apply to all species (FW-WFP-G-2). This would result in improved survival and 

reproduction of species and improve the potential for recovery of threatened and endangered 

species. 

Alternative B (modified) lacks the alternative A language to suppress fires in threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species habitat and instead recognizes that fire is essential for the 

restoration of fire-dependent and fire-adapted ecosystems and the species that evolved with those 

ecosystems. In addition, 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 potential impacts, such 

as ground disturbance from heavy equipment and hand lines that could occur with suppression 

tactics. Reducing ground disturbance would reduce the potential introduction of non-native 

invasive plants, reduce soil compaction and erosion, and reduce damage to existing vegetation.

Sensitive soils are protected because project-specific design features that minimize or avoid soil 

impacts would be used when projects occur on soils sensitive to degradation (FW-Soil-G-3). This 

would contribute to the viability of edaphic endemic plant species (such as those associated with 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

54

the Verde Formation) because the design features would protect the plant habitats from soil 

compaction and erosion.

Another important aspect of alternative B (modified) is that wildland fires would not result in loss 

of ecosystem function (FW-Fire-DC-3). Ecosystem function is important because an underlying 

assumption of the revised plan is that sustainable populations of native species would be 

maintained or enhanced where the ecosystems in which they occur or evolved are functioning 

properly, including at-risk species. The emphasis on ecosystem function, contributions, and 

resiliency is better articulated in alternative B (modified) than alternative A. See FW-Eco-DC-1, 

2, FW-Soil-DC-1 and 2, FW-Water-DC-1, 2 and 3, FW-Rip-All-DC-1, G-2, FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC1, FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, and FW-WFP-DC-1. 

Alternative B (modified) has objectives to implement at least 20 actions for federally listed 

species that contribute to recovery or implement recovery plan actions during each 10-year period 

of the life of the plan (FW-WFP-O-1); to implement at least 10 activities to benefit sensitive 

species that contribute to positive trends to avoid the need for listing during each 10-year period 

over the life of the plan (FW-WFP-O-2), and to restore or enhance at least 60,000 acres of 

terrestrial wildlife habitat during each 10-year period of the life of the plan (FW-WFP-O-3). This 

could enhance the survival or reproduction of species affected by future treatments or actions. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) specifically supports refugia and conditions for 

endemic, rare, or specialized species (in general FW-WFP-DC-5 and FW-WFP-G-10; for caves 

and karst FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-3 and FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-6, 7; for cliffs FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC6; for talus slopes FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-7; for springs FW-Rip-Spr-DC-5, FW-Rip-Spr-G-4, and 

MA-InBsn-G-3; and for Desert Communities and Alpine Tundra ERUs FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-4 

and FW-TerrERU-AT-DC-2). This language would promote survival and sustainability of these 

species and their habitats. For example, spring sources would be protected, which is where many 

spring specialist species reside. Microclimates in caves that provide specific conditions for bat 

maternity colonies or winter roosts would be maintained. 

In addition to the existing botanical areas, alternative B (modified) includes the establishment of 

the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area, which protects unique geologic formations 

(fumaroles) and vegetation associated with the uplands and springs within the area. The proposed 

geological and botanical area contains most of the known Bigelow’s onion (a rare species) 

occurrences on the forest. These areas would be protected by the same plan language as described 

for botanical areas under All Alternatives.

Guidance in alternative B (modified) for forest products (FW-FProd-G-4) provides an added layer 

of protection, compared to alternative A, from disturbances associated with plant collection. This 

guideline provides direction for collecting rare plants and those on the Southwestern Region’s 

sensitive species list, stating that they should not be collected unless the forest has information 

that the species can withstand collection and will persist on the forest. 

Alternative B (modified) has a higher contribution to the viability of at-risk species over time 

than alternative A. This alternative is better than alternative A at moving ecosystems that support 

at-risk species on a trajectory toward achieving desired conditions within the 10- to 15-year life 

of the plan. Alternative B (modified) better addresses climate change than alternative A (see 

section on Climate Change under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics). This alternative has more 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

55

clearly defined plan components that better address all ecosystems, species needs at a fine scale 

level, species with restricted distributions, invasive and non-native species, and disease.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except for the following:

Alternative C has more recommended wilderness than any other alternatives. This would have 

both positive and negative effects for some threatened and endangered species. While disturbance 

(e.g., invasives, noise) caused by human interactions might be minimized in these proposed areas, 

and connectivity may be improved, the forest would also be more limited in its ability to protect 

these ecosystems from natural disturbance, which could make them more vulnerable to 

uncharacteristic stand-replacing fire and other effects that are likely to become more frequent and 

intense with a changing climate. Additionally, like alternative A, alternative C has more 

prescriptive guidance for managing old-growth forest and does not reflect natural disturbance 

regimes. This prescriptive guidance would increase the risk for uncharacteristic disturbances and 

potential loss of the habitat in the long term.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except it only includes the 

Cottonwood Basin Geological Area, not the Botanical Area as in alternatives B (modified) and C. 

The geological area portion does not include the known occurrences of Bigelow’s onion.

Alternative D proposes no new wilderness areas. It also allows for more semi-primitive recreation 

(e.g., biking) and more energy transmission corridors; guidance which could potentially impact 

some threatened and endangered species by causing more disturbance and increasing the chances

for wildlife injury or mortality as a result of collisions with expanded areas of transmission line or 

other energy infrastructure.

Coarse Filter: Habitat 

The species viability analysis uses a two-stage process. The coarse filter analysis, which looks at

habitat, is the first stage. The fine filter analysis discussed below will look at species with specific 

needs. This section applies the coarse filter analysis process that is described above in the 

Analysis subsection of the Species Viability section. Of particular importance, the Analysis 

subsection provides detailed information and definitions on the factors and ratings (e.g., 

abundance, likelihood of habitat limitation variable, and management effect) that are used in the 

coarse filter analysis for every habitat. See tables Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10

for an explanation of the factors and ratings that are used to develop the summary of the coarse 

filter analysis tables in this section. Those factors and ratings are used to evaluate the primary 

habitats considered in this section. Detailed information for the habitats is located in the 

respective specialist reports, volume I of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and in the 

section on Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics. The analysis of alternatives focuses on the most 

relevant threats, resources, uses, and activities that are expected to have the greatest impact on 

each habitat.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

56

Desert Communities and the Verde Formation

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 81,128 acres of Desert Communities within the forest boundary and about 

77 percent (62,877 acres) of this is managed by Coconino NF. The remainder is primarily private 

with a mix of State, city, county, and Indian reservation. 

Table 12 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that the Desert Communities 

ERU would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance of 

Desert Communities is categorized as Occasional, because, at nearly 63,000 acres, it occupies 

about 3 percent of the forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of 

the forest and are encountered occasionally. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

The Desert Communities ERU occurs in the lower elevations of the Verde Valley in creosotedominated, alluvial position and on old stream terraces. It encompasses the Verde Valley 

Botanical Area (1,209 acres) and 178 acres of the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological and 

Botanical Area. There are 877 acres or about 1.3 percent of Desert Communities are in the 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.

The dominant species in Desert Communities are creosote bush and mesquite, but other species 

may include: cat claw acacia, saltbush, desert broom, desert willow, Apache plume, hedgehog 

cacti, cholla, and tobosa grass. Some areas may be barren with abundant sand, rock, gravel, scree, 

or talus. The Desert Communities ERU supports a unique community of endemic plants adapted 

to its calcium-rich soils; it also supports a plant, Arizona cliffrose, which is federally listed as 

endangered and only occurs in a very restricted portion of this ERU. Climate is the primary 

natural disturbance, and extreme climate variability (namely from temperature and precipitation) 

can cause temporary and localized shifts in vegetative composition.

Most of the ERU occurs in soils associated with the Verde Formation which are ancient lakebed 

soils. The Verde Formation covers about 69,039 acres in soil units 350, 381, and 385 of the 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES), which classifies ecological types and maps terrestrial 

ecological units across the forest. In the Verde Formation soils, primary natural disturbances are 

weather, climate, soil chemistry, and natural soil movement (inherent erosional processes) and 

fire is infrequent and low to mixed severity. In areas outside the Verde Formation soils, primary 

natural disturbances are climate, low intensity/high severity fire, and natural soil movement (e.g., 

natural shrink-swell and seasonal surface cracking). The white soft soils of the Verde Formation 

have high levels of calcium carbonate, a high pH, limited soil moisture potential, generally sparse 

vegetation, low litter, and have low productivity compared to the surrounding areas. They are 

easily eroded. 

The Verde Formation supports a variety of relict, disjunct, and endemic plant species because the 

surrounding dominant species are generally excluded from this soil type, thereby reducing 

competition for moisture and allowing the rarer species to survive (Anderson 1986 and 1996). 

These species include: Arizona cliffrose, Heath-leaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, 

Rusby’s milkwort, Verde breadroot, Verde Valley sage, and Verde four-nerve daisy.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

57

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 12 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Desert Communities is classified as poor and trending away from 

reference conditions. It has high departure and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in 

distribution across the landscape is greatly reduced. There is increased density of shrubs and 

understory species compared to reference conditions and increased fragmentation from 

urbanization. 

The quality of soils in Desert Communities (including the Verde Formation) is classified as fair. 

This means it has a moderate departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat 

areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is somewhat reduced relative to reference 

conditions. 

Table 12 shows that there is a high likelihood that Desert Communities habitat could be limiting 

to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species 

was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and thus would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Table 12. Summary of coarse filter analyses for Desert Communities ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Arizona cliffrose, 

Arizona phlox, Philip’s 

QualityVegetationPoor, 

trending 

away

Poor, trending away (Grand Canyon) 

agave, Heath-leaf wild 

buckwheat, Ripley’s 

wild buckwheat, 

Quality-Soil Fair, static Fair, static Fair, trending slowly toward Rusby’s milkwort, 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High High Sacred Mountain 

agave, Tonto Basin

agave, Verde

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area.

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.

breadroot, Verde 

Valley sage, Basin 

bladderpod, Bigelow's 

onion, Mearn’s lotus, 

Verde four-nerve daisy

Table 12 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

There are about 877 acres of Desert Communities in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

58

There are 1,029 acres of Desert Communities in the Verde Valley Botanical Area.

Risk Factors

Invasive plants, uncharacteristic fires, and dispersed recreation off of designated trails are primary 

threats to Desert Communities ERU. Vegetation in this ERU is generally widely spaced and 

limited by arid soils and climate. Increased abundance and distribution of invasive exotic annual 

grasses would fill in the spaces between plants, increase competition for water and nutrients, and 

increase the continuity of fuels. This could result in increased frequency and severity of wildfires. 

Because most species in this habitat are not adapted to more frequent fire disturbance, mortality 

of native species would occur and disturbance-adapted invasive or non-native annual vegetation 

could spread.

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.

Associated Species 

Associated species are listed in table 12. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, G-10). 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, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

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, 3). Implementation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

59

of this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of 

protective vegetative ground cover. This direction would also avoid or limit detrimental impacts 

to soil condition and productivity, including to soils with high burn severity, 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.

About 766 acres (1 percent) of Desert Communities are in designated wilderness. Designated 

wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy and Forest Plan 

direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; 

SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management 

because motorized use and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can 

kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can 

introduce non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively 

affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing 

activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest, at which 

invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur depending on 

the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by 

reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. 

However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration 

treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or for safety or make them harder to 

do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, an 

unnatural increase in fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of 

invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase 

the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. 

Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, 

which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Off-road travel in the Verde Valley Botanical Area is not allowed in any alternative (1987 Plan, 

page 194; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility corridors would also avoid 

the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would result in 

less disturbance to soil and plants, in less erosion and soil compaction, and eliminate habitat 

damage from these activities.

A portion of the Desert Communities ERU lies in the Ladders Bald Eagle Breeding Area Seasonal 

Closure, whose purpose is to protect wildlife habitat and rare wildlife. In the current plan, this 

closure is referred to as Closure Order 16-52 (1987 Plan, page 167). Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D include direction to close the area to motor vehicle use from December 1 to June 15, and 

also prohibit watercraft from landing, using the beach, or delaying passage within the closure area 

(MA-VerdeV-DC-7; MA-VerdeV-S-1). This would be beneficial to native species and their 

habitat because motor vehicle use and associated soil impacts (compaction, accelerated soil 

erosion, soil disturbance) or vegetation impacts (crushing or introduction of non-native plants) 

would be eliminated during this time period. This would be particularly beneficial for lowelevation plants and their pollinators, because they are actively growing and reproducing during 

this time period. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

60

Alternative A

Table 12 shows that under alternative A, vegetation quality would remain poor and trend away 

from desired conditions. The poor condition means that this ERU has a high departure from 

desired conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is greatly reduced. Soil quality, including in the Verde Formation, would remain fair 

with a static trend. This means it has a moderate departure from reference conditions and the 

number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is somewhat 

reduced relative to reference conditions. 

There is a high likelihood that Desert Communities could be a limiting factor to the viability of 

the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because 

vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and thus would 

better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect rating for all habitats is a 3, which means that plan components in 

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

plan area. Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of Desert 

Communities than the other alternatives.

The current plan contains no specific desired conditions for Desert Communities or the Verde 

Formation and has outdated direction for fragile desert soils. 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 direction for soil in MA 11 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 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. Range management focuses on less than satisfactory 

range conditions, broadcast seeding following burning to increase production, and forage 

improvement. See 1987 Plan, pages 166, 168, 169. Vegetative treatments to improve Desert 

Communities would be reviewed for soil potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to 

treatment. Verde Formation could be avoided or mitigation measures could be employed to avoid 

severe impairment of soil productivity. This could be protective of Verde Formation soils. The 

current plan would also improve conditions on prioritized watersheds in unsatisfactory condition, 

which could improve vegetation and soil conditions toward desired conditions in Desert 

Communities depending on the methods used. 

Desert Communities and the Verde Formation 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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

61

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 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 B (modified)

Table 12 shows that vegetation quality would remain poor and still trend away from desired 

conditions. This is primarily because management is not expected to increase substantially over 

current levels. Soil quality would remain fair, but the trend shifts slowly toward desired 

conditions, and thus, would improve faster than under alternative A. Although there are no 

treatment objectives for this ERU, any action that occurs in this ERU would follow the proposed 

revised plan direction and would either maintain or move the ERU toward the proposed desired 

conditions. The likelihood remains high that Desert Communities would be limiting to the 

associated species, however. 

The management effect would be a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the 

plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of Desert Communities 

and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Goals in the proposed revised plan have greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move 

toward desired conditions than alternative A. Goals promote: properly functioning ecosystems 

that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change, the reduction of uncharacteristic 

disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators), and disease with occasional 

outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies with properly functioning 

ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4). Goals include a mosaic of vegetation conditions, densities and 

structures and various scales that reflect natural disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, 

adaptions to climate variability, connections based on natural patterns, and allowances for 

inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERU-All-1 to 4). 

This alternative contains explicit desired conditions for Desert Communities that promote various 

seral stages of native species in natural patterns of abundance and distribution; promote native 

endemic plants species and beneficial relationships with microbes (key for plant species in arid 

environments), as well as the recovery of arroyos and gullies (which are a prominent yet 

undesirable legacy of past uses and activities) (FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-1, 2, 4). There is a goal that 

uncharacteristic fires would be infrequent and localized (FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-3). This is 

particularly relevant because this ERU is not fire-adapted. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

62

Desired conditions in the soil section 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. This is particularly positive for the Verde Formation soils that are soft, 

calcareous, and easily erodible.

Forestwide direction for recreation would improve conditions in Desert Communities and the 

Verde Formation 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, 2; FWRec-Trails-DC-3, 4, 11; FW-Rec-Trails-G-1, 3. 

There are 1,207 acres (about 2 percent of the ERU) of Desert Communities in designated or 

proposed botanical areas: Verde Valley (1,029 acres) and Cottonwood Basin (178 acres). Plan 

language in alternative B (modified) promotes protection and maintenance of the unique 

characteristics of botanical areas and sustainability of their inherent physical and biological 

processes that are not negatively impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SARNABotGeo-DC-6; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). Fires and allotment management plans would be 

protective of the resources for which these areas were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). 

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 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 would 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. 

About 97 percent of Desert Communities ERU occurs within the Verde Valley Management Area. 

Desired conditions and guidelines would maintain or improve conditions in the 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; MA-VerdeV-G-1, 2). 

Desert Communities does not occur in recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there are 949 acres 

(1 percent) of Desert Communities ERU in five recommended wildernesses: Black Mountain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

63

(588 acres), Cedar Bench (189 acres), Cimarron-Boulder (65 acres), Deadwood Draw (42 acres), 

and Hackberry (65 acres). Recommended wilderness would promote non-motorized and nonmechanized activities, which would reduce motorized impacts to soil and vegetation in this ERU 

(SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). However, limited access would make it more 

difficult to suppress wildfires and to treat invasive species, which can spread fire and shorten fire 

return intervals if they become widespread. This could increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in 

scattered localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. This would have little effect on the 

ERU at the landscape level due to the relative small proportion of the ERU affected. 

Another difference between alternative B (modified) and alternative C is that mechanized use on 

designated trails in botanical and geological areas is not suitable in alternative C. There are no 

provisions for mechanized use on designated trails. Subsequent environmental analysis would 

need to be done for this direction to take effect. Compared to the other alternatives, this is most 

protective for the plants and their habitat because one of the potential disturbances to soil and 

vegetation would not be allowed. Not all potential disturbances to botanical and geological areas 

would be eliminated, because horseback use and foot traffic would still be permitted. This would 

remove vegetation and soil impacts from mechanized use along designated trails in the Verde 

Valley Botanical Area, but would have no effect in the proposed Cottonwood Basin Geological 

and Botanical Area, which currently lacks designated trails.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except it only proposes the 

Cottonwood Basin Geological Area. The geological area does not overlap the Desert 

Communities ERU. The area covered by the Cottonwood Basin Botanical Area in alternative B 

(modified) would be managed under the forestwide and management area direction applicable to 

the area in alternative D. Alternative D includes no recommended wilderness areas. The 

recommended wilderness areas of alternative B (modified) would be managed under the 

forestwide and management area direction applicable to the area in alternative D.

Interior Chaparral

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 50,736 acres of Interior Chaparral ERU within the forest boundary and about 

99 percent (50,471 acres) of this is managed by the Coconino NF. The portion not managed by 

the Coconino is primarily private. 

Table 13 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Interior Chaparral ERU 

would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance of Interior 

Chaparral is categorized as Occasional, because at 50,471 acres, it occupies about 3 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and are 

encountered occasionally. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Interior Chaparral occurs at lower elevations, mostly in the Verde River basin, between the Semidesert Grassland and Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERUs. This shrub-dominated ERU varies 

from widely scattered pockets within grasslands and woodlands to more extensive areas on steep 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

64

slopes. Species composition and dominance varies across the landscape, depending on fire 

history, soils, and topography. 

Interior chaparral vegetation includes: turbinella oak, mountain mahogany, manzanita, desert 

ceanothus, silk tassel, Stansbury cliffrose, and sumac. Fire is the primary natural disturbance. 

Some chaparral species have fire adaptations such as needing fire or smoke for seedling 

germination and establishment. Soil productivity is naturally low and most soils are inherently 

unstable due to the steep slopes. Interior Chaparral is characterized by high-severity fire that 

occurs primarily every 200+ years; however, some mixed severity fire may occur every 0 to 

35 years. The fire return interval departure is high and trending away from reference conditions. 

A few invasive exotic plant species are present in this ERU; however, because their populations 

are few in number and acreage, this ERU is rated low for departure from reference conditions 

with respect to weeds. 

There are 8 acres of Interior Chaparral in the Casner Canyon Research Natural Area. About 

707 acres (1.4 percent of the ERU) fall within the Oak Creek Research Natural Area, which has a 

high level of recreation use and overlaps the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. About 

77 percent of the ERU occurs within designated wilderness. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 13 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Interior Chaparral is classified as good. It has a low departure and 

the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar to or 

only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. The projected trend for vegetation structure 

and composition is static, relative to reference conditions, but the trend for invasive exotic species 

is away from desired conditions because of the anticipated spread of non-native grasses from 

adjacent ERUs.

The quality of soils is classified as good with a static trend relative to reference conditions. About 

89 percent of the ERU is classified in satisfactory but inherently unstable soil condition. This 

means that erosion is naturally happening faster than the soil can renew itself, generally on steep 

slopes. The remainder of the ERU is considered satisfactory. 

Table 13 shows that there is a low likelihood that Interior Chaparral habitat would be limiting to 

the associated species. The likelihood that Interior Chaparral would be limiting was based on 

integrating the habitat abundance value with the habitat quality value. 

Table 13. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Interior Chaparral ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternative B (modified), 

C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Bigelow’s onion, 

QualityVegetationGood, 

static

Good, trending 

away then fair, 

away

Good, away Flagstaff pennyroyal, 

Mt. Dellenbaugh 

sandwort

Quality-Soil Good, 

static

Good, static Good, trending toward

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Low Low at short term

Moderate at long 

term 

Low
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

65

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternative B (modified), 

C, and D Associated Species

Management 

effect

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.

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.

Table 13 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Risk Factors

Non-native invasive plant species, such as annual grasses can alter the natural fire return interval 

and fire regime. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 13. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information.

The majority of Interior Chaparral is found in wilderness. 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. Under the Wilderness Act, the use of motorized or mechanized equipment is not allowed 

because it is not compatible with wilderness objectives. Vegetation may not be managed through 

mechanical harvest activities and ground disturbance from mechanical treatments would not 

occur. If wildfires can be appropriately managed to meet resource objectives, then they, and 

prescribed fires, could be used for restoration. Plan language promotes properly functioning 

ecosystems that support a natural assemblage of native species indigenous to the wilderness area; 

management activities and permitted uses that maintain or move toward desired conditions for 

wilderness and other resources, and use levels that 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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

66

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants and can degrade the habitat through 

soil compaction, soil loss, and the potential introduction of non-native species that compete with 

native plants for resources and alter the fire regime. 

All alternatives include guidance for management of research natural areas that would be 

beneficial for Interior Chaparral in those areas by allowing natural processes and natural 

conditions to prevail. This guidance would minimize recreational impacts by restricting camping, 

prohibiting recreation fires, and limiting non-commercial group size (1987 Plan, page 196-1; SARNABotGeo-S-1; SA-RNABotGeo-G-6). In addition, access should be restricted as needed to 

maintain their natural, unmodified condition, and commercial tours would be prohibited except in 

support of approved research (1987 Plan, page 196-2; SA-RNABotGeo-S-2). This guidance 

would reduce the potential for human-caused fires and maintain the natural conditions for which 

the RNA was designated, which include properly functioning soils and vegetation. This guidance 

would also mitigate soil compaction, soil loss, and vegetation damage from some recreational 

activities. Designated wilderness direction would prevail in the Oak Creek RNA. 

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, 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. This would help maintain good soil condition in this ERU. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, would compete with native 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, 2,3; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 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.

All alternatives would protect vegetation and soil in Interior Chaparral from trampling and 

compaction by not allowing horse and pack stock in areas such as Fay, Wilson Mountain, West 

Fork of Oak Creek, Devil's Bridge, and Boynton Canyon Trails within the Red Rock-Secret 

Mountain Wilderness (1987 Plan, page 90; MA-RedRock-S-9). 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 13 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Interior Chaparral is classified as good in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

67

short term, which means similar or only slightly reduced from desired conditions. In the short 

term, structure and composition is expected to trend away from desired conditions as invasive 

plant species expand and fire suppression prevents fire from playing its natural role in the ERU. 

In the long term (after about 50 years), vegetation structure and composition is expected to be 

even more departed from desired conditions, resulting in vegetation quality shifting to a fair 

condition. Soil condition and soil productivity are currently in good (satisfactory) condition and 

are expected to remain satisfactory under alternative A. Litter, vegetative composition, and 

understory productivity are expected to remain about the same. 

There is a low likelihood in the short term and a moderate likelihood in the long term that Interior 

Chaparral could be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

The management effect is a 4. This means that there could be a decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of management that result from plan components. The existing 

Forest Plan provides little to no direction and no desired conditions for this ERU, except for what 

is in wilderness. 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 reduces 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). Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of Interior 

Chaparral and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives.

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Interior Chaparral, 

but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildlandurban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the landownership 

pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. This is a negative impact on the composition and 

age class distribution of Interior Chaparral, which is a fire-dependent ecosystem.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 13 shows that vegetation quality will remain the same as in alternative A, i.e., good 

condition with a trend away from desired conditions. Soil quality would be expected to remain in 

good (satisfactory) condition and trend toward desired conditions under alternative B (modified). 

Interior Chaparral would continue to have a low likelihood of being limiting to the associated 

species. The management effect is 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. Alternative B 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

68

(modified) contributes more to the maintenance and sustainability of Interior Chaparral and the 

viability of the associated species than alternative A.

This alternative has desired conditions and guidelines specific to this ERU, whereas these are 

absent in the current plan. 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. 

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. Fire and vegetation management in the wildland-urban interface 

would favor low-severity surface fires and higher frequency of disturbance than the natural 

disturbance regime from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource objectives, and/or 

vegetative treatments (FW-WUI-DC-4, 8). 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 stimulating seed release, germination, or causing a 

temporary increase in nutrient availability in the understory, which could benefit native 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 this habitat (Cione et al. 2002). Plants 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 Interior Chaparral (FWTerrERU-IC-DC-8), 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 Interior 

Chaparral is dependent on the site-specific and species-specific interaction of the abovementioned possible effects and conditions. 

From a soil condition and productivity standpoint, soil quality would remain good because 

desired conditions would emphasize maintenance of vegetative ground cover to protect soil from 

accelerated erosion (FW-Soil-DC-3), and therefore, maintain soil productivity. Soil nutrient 

cycling would be improved through maintenance of biological soil crusts (FW-Soil-DC-4). There 

is a guideline that directs treatment location rotations to re-establish seed banks and control fuels 

spatially to protect soils from accelerated erosion (FW-TerrERU-IC-G-1). This would indirectly 

improve soil nutrient cycling and reduce the risk of moderate-severity wildfires that may pose 

risk to soil productivity, connected waters, and water quality. Collectively, these plan components 

result in a trend toward desired conditions compared to a static trend with alternative A. 

Alternative B (modified) lacks the plan language from alternative A that impedes the ability to 

manage wildfires for resource objectives in wilderness. Where implemented, the use of wildfires 

for resource objectives would help restore fire as a natural process, reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire, and move the ERU toward desired conditions. None of the three 

wildernesses that are recommended under alternative B (modified) contain Interior Chaparral. 

Alternative B (modified) includes plan components that promote wildland fires within historic 

fire regimes with the caveat that they do not result in the loss of life, property, or ecosystem 

function (FW-Fire-DC-2, 3); encourage the restoration of desired disturbance regimes, including 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

69

fire, when practical (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2); and encourage fire management where conditions 

permit and where consistent with maintenance of or moving toward desired conditions for other 

resources (FW-Fire-G-2, Management Approaches for Fire Management) without the additional 

constraints found under alternative A. Although wilderness designation does not allow motorized 

or mechanized use, there would be more opportunities to treat fire-adapted ERUs with fire 

compared to alternative A. 

Interior Chaparral ERU overlaps six management areas with the majority (78 percent) in the Red 

Rock Management Area. Most of the plan direction is focused on scenery and recreation, 

although one beneficial desired condition would promote a balance between recreation 

experiences and natural resources (MA-RedRock-DC-2). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except a total of 13 wildernesses 

are recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 39,065 acres of Interior Chaparral in designated 

wilderness (77 percent of the ERU), there are 1,720 acres of Interior Chaparral ERU in the 

Walker Mountain recommended wilderness (3 percent of the ERU) for a total of about 80 percent 

of the ERU in either designated or recommended wilderness. Recommended wilderness would 

reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited 

administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). 

Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. 

However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that 

preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses 

that could be beneficial to associated species on about 10 percent of the ERU; the remaining 

portion of the ERU is on steep slopes. However, limited access associated with recommended 

(and designated) wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized 

equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Site-specific 

circumstances would influence which or whether restoration treatments might be precluded. 

Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased 

and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of 

invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase 

the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. 

Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, 

which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative D

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

Semi-desert Grassland and the Verde Formation

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 108,531 acres of Semi-desert Grassland within the forest boundary and about 

83 percent of this is managed by Coconino NF. The portion not managed by the Coconino is 

primarily private and State with a mix of city and county ownership. It contains numerous roads 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

70

and private land parcels, and adjoins the communities of Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and 

Cornville. 

Table 14 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Semi-desert Grassland 

would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance of Semi-desert 

Grassland is categorized as Occasional, because at nearly 89,700 acres it occupies about 5 percent 

of the forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and 

are encountered occasionally.

Habitat Quality and Distribution

This ERU is located in the Verde Valley, which has the highest density of archaeological sites 

(including prehistoric agricultural fields) on the forest. Certain agave species were cultivated by 

pre-Columbian farmers dating to at least A.D. 600, and probably were exchanged and moved 

along prehistoric trade routes. Some of these agaves persist in this ERU and are associated with 

archaeological sites. Current vegetation is dominated by perennial bunchgrasses; shrubs such as 

crucifixion thorn, velvet mesquite, cat claw mimosa, agaves, and turbinella oak; forbs which may 

include various buckwheat species; and trees such as Utah juniper and red berried juniper. 

Wildfire is a natural disturbance within this ERU, and Semi-desert Grassland was historically 

characterized by low-severity fire that occurred every 0 to 35 years. 

A portion of the ERU occurs in soils associated with the Verde Formation which are ancient 

lakebed soils. The Verde Formation covers about 69,039 acres in soil units 350, 381, and 385 of 

the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES), which classifies ecological types and maps terrestrial 

ecological units across the forest. In the Verde Formation soils, primary natural disturbances are 

weather, climate, soil chemistry, and natural soil movement (inherent erosional processes) and 

fire is infrequent and low to mixed severity. In areas outside the Verde Formation soils, primary 

natural disturbances are climate, low-intensity/high-severity fire, and natural soil movement (e.g., 

natural shrink-swell and seasonal surface cracking). The Verde Formation supports a variety of 

relict, disjunct, and endemic plant species because the surrounding dominant species are generally 

excluded from this soil type, thereby reducing competition for moisture and allowing the rarer 

species to survive (Anderson 1986 and 1996). These species include: Arizona cliffrose, Heathleaf wild buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat, Rusby’s milkwort, Verde breadroot, Verde Valley 

sage, and Verde four-nerve daisy.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 14

summarizes vegetation and soil quality. The vegetation quality of Semi-desert Grassland is 

classified as poor, which means there is a high departure relative to reference conditions and that 

the number, size, and evenness of distribution of the habitat areas is greatly reduced. This ERU is 

trending away from reference conditions, because it is more shrub- and tree-dominated than in 

reference conditions and there is more human development. 

Soils in Semi-desert Grassland (including the Verde Formation) are classified as poor or highly 

departed with a slow trend toward reference. Large amounts of impaired and unsatisfactory soils 

result in reduced nutrient-cycling functions (low amount of litter, low organic matter, and poor 

species composition), low understory productivity, and decreased ability of soil to infiltrate water. 

This is primarily due to historic grazing, past and current OHV use, recreational impacts, shrub 

and tree dominance, and recent drought. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

71

Table 14 shows that there is a high likelihood that Semi-desert Grassland habitat could be 

limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated 

species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation 

quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is assumed to 

respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences 

between alternatives.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

72

Table 14. Summary of coarse filter analyses for Semi-desert Grassland ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Arizona cliffrose, Arizona 

QualityVegetationPoor, 

trending 

away

Poor, static Poor, trending away phlox , Phillip’s (Grand 

Canyon) agave, Page 

Springs agave, Mt. 

Quality-Soil Poor, 

trending 

slowly 

toward

Poor, trending 

slowly toward

Poor, trending toward Dellenbaugh sandwort, 

Rusby’s milkwort, Sacred 

Mountain agave, Tonto 

Basin agave, Verde 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High High breadroot, Verde Valley 

(Mearn’s) sage, ferruginous 

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area. 

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.

hawk, pronghorn, Basin 

bladderpod, Bigelow's 

onion, Mearn’s lotus, skunktop scurfpea

Table 14 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

About 3,640 acres of this ERU are distributed in five designated wildernesses: Sycamore Canyon 

(1,657 acres), Red Rock-Secret Mountain (1,313 acres), West Clear Creek (275 acres), Mazatzal 

(271 acres), and Munds Mountain (115 acres). This is about 4 percent of the ERU. There are 

162 acres in the Verde Valley Botanical Area.

Risk Factors

Non-native invasive plant species can disrupt the composition and structure of ecosystems as well 

as natural processes including fire return intervals, soil stability, and ecosystem hydrology. 

Fragmentation, or the lack of connectivity, can alter the ability of species to disperse and meet 

their life history needs. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 14. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species and fragmentation are 

addressed under the Non-native or Invasive Species and Connectivity topics above in the Wildlife 

and Plant Issues and Topics section. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

73

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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 would compete with native 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-1,2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

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, 3). Implementation of this 

direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover. This direction would also avoid or limit detrimental impacts to soil

condition and productivity, including soils with high burn severity, 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. 

About four percent of Semi-desert Grassland ERU occurs in designated wilderness. It is 

distributed in six designated wildernesses: Mazatzal (271 acres), Munds Mountain (115 acres), 

Red Rock-Secret Mountain (1,313 acres), Sycamore (1,657 acres), West Clear Creek (275 acres), 

and Wet Beaver (11 acres). Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to 

applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and 

wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SAWild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits 

most active vegetation management because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. 

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants and can degrade the habitat through 

soil compaction and soil loss. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, 

trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or 

accelerated erosion could occur, depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing 

activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and 

dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited access associated with designated 

wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments 

or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in 

missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs 

and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

74

trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas 

more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or 

establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire 

regime, and biodiversity. 

Off-road travel in the Verde Valley Botanical Area is not allowed in any alternative (1987 Plan, 

page 194; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility corridors would also avoid 

the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would result in 

less disturbance to soil and plants and in less erosion and soil compaction. Potential habitat 

damage from these activities would be eliminated. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 14 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Semi-desert Grassland is classified as poor, 

which means it has a high departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness 

of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is greatly reduced. Under the plan direction in 

alternative A, vegetation quality is expected to be static relative to desired conditions primarily 

due to the lack of plan objectives for treatment, thus tree and shrub cover would continue to 

increase and understory would decrease in abundance and vigor. 

Soil condition and soil productivity would also be in poor condition with a slow trend toward

desired conditions. Soil quality is expected to slowly improve as improved grazing strategies are 

implemented and roads are closed although progress will be slow due to the arid climate, lack of 

plan emphasis on treating this ERU, and the continued lack of fire.

There is a high likelihood that Semi-desert Grassland could be a limiting factor to the viability of 

the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because 

vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would 

better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3, which means that plan components maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A contributes less to 

the maintenance and sustainability of Semi-desert Grassland and the viability of the associated 

species than the other alternatives.

The different types of grasslands were not distinguished in the current forest plan, so 

consequently, there are no specific desired conditions for this ERU in the current plan. Direction 

for the majority of Semi-desert Grassland ERU is located in the Verde Valley Management Area 

(MA 11) (over 46,000 acres) and in the Savannah Management Area (MA 27) (almost 

24,000 acres). Part of the guidance in the Verde Valley Management Area is outdated and part of 

the guidance in the Savannah Management Area better reflects current science. 

In the portion of Semi-desert Grassland that overlaps the Verde Valley Management Area, the 

current forest plan emphasizes watershed condition and range management and prioritizes 

improvement in watersheds in unsatisfactory condition, which could improve vegetation and soil 

conditions. Range management focuses on less than satisfactory range conditions, broadcast 

seeding following burning to increase production (for livestock), and forage improvement. The 

direction for soil in this alternative focuses on achieving range improvement by identifying areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

75

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. 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 and other soil types and lead 

to increased erosion. Alternative A specifies that the seed mix should be shade-tolerant and a mix 

of warm and cool season grasses, and does not specify that the seed mix should be native. 

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. 

However, vegetative treatments to improve Semi-desert Grassland would be reviewed for soil 

potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment. The Verde Formation could be 

avoided or mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe impairment of soil 

productivity (1987 Plan, pages 166, 168, 169). 

In contrast, in the portion of Semi-desert Grassland that overlaps the Savannah Management 

Area, the current forest plan emphasizes that ecosystem processes play a natural role and that 

high quality grasslands support a diversity of wildlife. The current plan would have this MA 

characterized by 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). Implementation 

of this language would move this ERU toward desired conditions. 

Although prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Semidesert Grassland, there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the 

wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the landownership 

pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. This is a negative impact on the composition and 

age class distribution of Semi-desert Grassland. 

There are 162 acres (0.1 percent of the ERU) and 2 percent of the Verde Formation in the Verde 

Valley Botanical Area. Botanical area direction in Management Area 17 will protect this portion 

of the ERU and the Verde Formation by restricting new transmission corridors, emphasizing 

existing conditions and natural processes, restricting off-road driving, limiting visitors to meet 

carrying capacity, maintaining their ecological condition, prohibiting firewood cutting, not 

allowing special-use authorizations that could adversely affect these areas, managing roads to 

prevent vehicular intrusion, and managing fire to minimize damage to the character of this area 

(1987 Plan, pages 79, 194 to 196). 

However, 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 acceleration erosion within localized areas in this ERU. 

Alternative B (modified)

Under alternative B (modified), vegetation quality and soil quality would be poor (see table 14), 

the same as alternative A. Quality would improve faster than alternative A because of a treatment 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

76

objective (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2) that would move Semi-desert Grassland ERU toward desired 

conditions at a slightly faster pace than alternative A. Under this alternative, wildfires may be

managed for resource objectives in more areas of the landscape than in alternative A, allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). Vegetation modeling shows that grasses 

and forbs would increase by 6 percent by year 15 and by 15 percent by year 50 as woody 

vegetation is cleared. Soil desired conditions would promote proper functioning soils, soil 

protection and stabilization, and nutrient cycling (FW-Soil-DC-1, 2, 3, 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, 2, 3). 

Under alternative B (modified), there is a high likelihood that Semi-desert Grassland could be 

limiting to the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and 

thus would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 2 for alternative B (modified) which means that plan components 

maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

Alternative B (modified) contributes more to the maintenance and sustainability of Semi-desert 

Grassland and to the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Unlike alternative A, this alternative clearly 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-DC1, 2, 3, 4; FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). In addition for all terrestrial ERUs, it promotes a mosaic of 

vegetation conditions, densities, and structures at different scales; ecosystems that are 

interconnected based on natural patterns; and restoration of desired disturbance regimes (FWTerrERU-All-DC-1 to 5, FW-TerrERU-All-G-1, 3). 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; FW-TerrERUGrass-G-2). 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). Native understory species would be 

capable of supporting frequent surface fires except in the Verde Formation soils, which support 

infrequent fires of low to mixed severity (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). 

In addition to the 3,640 acres of designated wilderness, about 132 acres (0.1 percent of the ERU) 

are in the Davey’s recommended wilderness area under this alternative. Recommended 

wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only 

for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 

5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable, 

however, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

77

preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses 

which could be beneficial to associated species. However, limited access associated with 

recommended and designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Sitespecific circumstances would influence which or whether restoration treatments might be 

precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, 

increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment 

and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions 

or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other 

alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or nonnative species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. Impacts to the 

ERU from wilderness recommendation and the combination of designated wilderness plus 

recommended wilderness would be localized and are unlikely to affect the ERU at the landscape 

level because of the small proportion affected.

There are 737 total acres of Semi-desert Grassland ERU in the Cottonwood Basin Geological and 

Botanical Area (575 acres) and Verde Valley Botanical Area (162 acres). Plan language in 

alternative B (modified) promotes protection and maintenance of the unique characteristics of 

botanical areas and sustainability of their inherent physical and biological processes that are not 

negatively impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-6; SARNABotGeo-G-1). Fires and allotment management plans would be protective of the resources 

for which these areas were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). 

Mechanized travel is not suitable in these areas except on designated trails (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 clearer than in alternative 

A, and is considered to be protective of vegetation and soil because potential impacts, such as 

damage to vegetation and accelerated erosion, would be evaluated during the environmental 

analysis and impacts would be limited to the trail prism. 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except a total of 13 wildernesses 

are recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 3,640 acres of Semi-desert Grassland in 

designated wilderness (4 percent of the ERU), there are 12,041 acres recommended wilderness 

(13.4 percent of the ERU) The recommended wilderness acres are distributed among seven 

recommended wildernesses: Hackberry (4,327 acres), Black Mountain (2,444 acres), Cedar 

Bench (1,972 acres), Cimarron-Boulder (1,907 acres), Deadwood Draw (753 acres), Walker 

Mountain (506 acres), and Davey’s (132 acres). There would be a total of 17 percent of the ERU 

in either designated or recommended wilderness. Impacts to the ERU from wilderness 

recommendation and the combination of designated wilderness plus recommended wilderness 

would be same as in alternative B (modified), but would cover a higher proportion of the ERU. 

Because the 3,500-acre plan objective (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-1) is small compared to the size of 

the ERU, it is unlikely that designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, and proposed 

treatment areas would overlap, so the consequences to the ERU associated with the plan objective 

are similar to alternative B (modified).

Mechanized use on designated trails in botanical and geological areas is not suitable in alternative 

C. There are no provisions for mechanized use on designated trails. Subsequent environmental 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

78

analysis would need to be done for this direction to take effect. This is most protective alternative 

for the plants and their habitat because one of the potential disturbances to soil and vegetation 

would not be allowed. This would not eliminate all potential disturbances to botanical and 

geological areas because horseback use and foot traffic would still be permitted. This would 

remove the potential for damaged vegetation and accelerated erosion from mechanized use along 

designated trails in the Verde Valley Botanical Area, but would have little impact in the 

Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area, which currently lacks designated trails. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects as alternative B (modified) except for the following.

Alternative D proposes only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area, which has 185 acres of 

Semi-desert Grassland. The 390 acres of Semi-desert Grassland in the Cottonwood Basin 

Botanical Area of alternative B (modified) would be guided by applicable forestwide or 

management area plan direction rather than plan components relating to botanical areas. There are 

no recommended wilderness areas. In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of 

alternative B (modified) would be guided by applicable forestwide or management area plan 

direction rather than plan components relating to recommended wilderness. 

Great Basin Grassland

Affected Environment

Amount

There are about 96,233 acres of Great Basin Grassland within the forest boundary and about 

96 percent (92,842 acres) of this is managed by Coconino NF. The portion not managed by the 

Coconino is primarily private.

Table 15 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Great Basin Grassland 

ERU would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance of Great 

Basin Grassland ERU is categorized as Occasional because it occupies about 5 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and are 

encountered occasionally.

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Great Basin Grassland ERU occurs at elevations between 4,800 and 7,500 feet. Great Basin 

Grassland ERU covers approximately 92,842 acres (approximately 5 percent) of the Coconino 

NF within lands managed by the Coconino NF. These grasslands are more arid than 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU. Typical locations are Anderson Mesa and near Wupatki 

National Monument. They consist mostly of grasses with smaller amounts of forbs and shrubs. 

Trees can be present in trace amounts depending on the soil; however, tree canopy is increasing in 

some areas. Species include, but are not limited to, western wheatgrass, black grama, blue grama, 

galleta grass, hairy grama, spike muhly, and needle and thread grass. Trees may include sparse 

one-seed juniper, alligator juniper, red berry juniper, Utah juniper, and Colorado pinyon pine. 

Natural disturbances are weather, low-intensity/high-severity fire (from adjacent ERUs), and 

natural soil movement (e.g., natural shrink swell and seasonal surface cracking). 

There are about 190 acres of Great Basin Grassland in designated wilderness (all within the 

Strawberry Crater Wilderness).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

79

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 15

summarizes vegetation and soil quality. The vegetation quality of this ERU is classified as good 

and trending away from reference condition because shrub and tree invasion is occurring along 

the edge of grasslands and there has been a shift from small to large tree sizes. This results in 

alterations to canopy closure, mosaic patterns, structural stages, fire severity, and fire frequency. 

The structure, composition, and/or functioning is similar to reference conditions. Number and 

size of habitat areas and /or their evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar to or 

only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. 

Soils in Great Basin Grassland ERU are classified as highly departed with a trend toward 

reference condition. Soil nutrient cycling and hydrology functions are appreciably reduced 

primarily due to drought, past grazing by cattle, and past and current grazing by wildlife. 

Understory vigor and productivity is somewhat reduced; however, current grazing strategies are 

improving vegetative layer and ground cover. Consequently, habitat quality from a soil 

perspective is considered poor. 

Table 15 shows that there is a low likelihood that Great Basin Grassland habitat could be limiting 

to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species 

was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Table 15. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Great Basin Grassland ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternative B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Black-footed ferret, 

QualityVegetationGood, 

trending 

away

Good, trending away

then fair, away

Good, static western burrowing 

owl, ferruginous 

hawk, Gunnison’s 

Quality-Soil Poor, 

trending 

toward

Poor, slowly trending 

toward

Poor, trending toward prairie dog, 

pronghorn, black 

dropseed

Likelihood of

Limitation

Low Short term: Low

Long term: Moderate

Low

Management 

effect

3: Plan components 

maintain or improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Table 15 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

80

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Risk Factors

Non-native invasive plant species can disrupt the composition and structure of ecosystems as well 

as natural processes including fire return intervals, soil stability, and ecosystem hydrology.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 15. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species and fragmentation are 

addressed under the Non-native or Invasive Species and Connectivity topics above in the Wildlife 

and Plant Issues and Topics section. 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1, FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

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, 3). Implementation 

of this direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of 

protective vegetative ground cover. This direction would also avoid or limit detrimental impacts 

to soil condition and productivity, including soils with high burn severity, 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. This would help maintain good 

soil condition in this ERU.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

81

Less than 1 percent of Great Basin Grassland ERU occurs in designated wilderness (all in the 

Strawberry Crater Wilderness. Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to 

applicable laws, policy and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and 

wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SAWild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active 

vegetation management because motorized use and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized 

and mechanized access can kill or damage plants and can degrade the habitat through soil 

compaction and soil loss. Ground-disturbing activities from recreation are primarily confined to 

main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species introduction and 

establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur depending on the level of use. The lack of 

ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant 

introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited access associated 

with designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized 

equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration 

treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, 

increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native 

species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. However, due to the small percentages of 

Great Basin Grassland ERU involved, restrictions on access that might be needed to conduct 

vegetative treatments in wilderness would not affect the overall quality of the ERU. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 15 shows 

that under alternative A, vegetation quality would be in good condition in the short term and 

would trend away from desired conditions until it transitioned to fair condition in the long term, 

still with a trend away from desired conditions. This is because tree and shrub cover would 

continue to increase and understory would decrease in abundance and vigor in the absence of 

vegetation treatments or fire that would decrease tree and shrub cover. Small mammals, birds, 

invertebrates, pronghorn, and prairie dogs rely on the diversity, abundance, and vigor of 

understory vegetation for food and cover which is reduced as tree and shrub cover increases. 

Invertebrates are food for birds and small mammals which in turn are prey for western burrowing 

owls and ferruginous hawks. An increase in trees and shrubs could provide more cover for 

coyotes and mountain lions that prey on pronghorn. Trends away from desired conditions would 

reduce habitat quality for species associated with these grasslands.

Soil quality is poor and is expected to slowly improve toward desired conditions as improved 

grazing strategies and mechanical treatments are implemented. 

There is a low likelihood that Great Basin Grassland ERU could be a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species in the short term and a moderate likelihood in the long term. 

This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for 

vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.

The management effect is 3, which means that plan components in alternative A maintain or 

improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management for some habitat 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

82

and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A contributes less to the 

maintenance and sustainability of Great Basin Grassland than the other alternatives.

Alternative A does not distinguish between the different grassland types that 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 forage species (1987 Plan, page 160). More recently amended sections 

of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem Area (FLEA), 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 (1987 Plan, pages 206-72, 78, 

97, 98, 100; 206-103; 209-108; 206-114). This guidance is limited to the FLEA analysis area and 

does not apply forestwide. Alternative A has limited guidance on structure and function however 

there is some guidance related to invasive plants, soil, fire management, water resources, wildlife 

habitat, and range improvement (1987 Plan, pages 162 to165, 206-72, 75 to 78, 206-89). 

Alternative A provides guidance to maintain and improve grasslands, including removing 

invading overstory, stabilizing gullies, scarifying soils, appropriate seeding, controlling livestock, 

raising the water table, reducing road and motorized use impacts, and re-introducing fire (1987 

Plan, pages 159, 160, 164, 206-87 to 206-88). There are guidelines regarding relocation, 

obliteration, or closure of roads that are damaging or could damage meadows (1987 Plan, pages 

206-70, 206-77, 78, 206-116). The current plan also promotes the maintenance of seral grasslands 

in Management Area 10 and focuses road and trail maintenance in damaged meadows in the 

Doney Management Area (1987 Plan, pages 206-93). 

There are no provisions for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, page 93). Restrictions on the use of wildfires in the wildland-urban interface 

have a detrimental effect on reintroducing fire or reducing the potential for uncharacteristic fire in 

the wildland-urban interface portions of Great Basin Grassland ERU because the landownership 

pattern is intermixed between public and private ownerships. 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 15 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Great Basin Grassland is classified as good with a static trend away 

relative to desired conditions varying only slightly over years. 

The soil quality would improve faster than under alternative A, but not fast enough to shift the 

condition from poor to fair. The improvement would be the result of 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). Treatments would likely remove tree and 

shrubs, reduce canopy cover, and expand the area occupied by grasses and forbs, which would 

improve soil condition and maintain soil productivity. Additional language that is not present in 

alternative A would promote satisfactory and functional soils in a portion of Great Basin 

Grassland by not using prescribed fires and wildfires managed for resource objectives on areas 

with clayey soils until natural vegetative ground cover is near potential (FW-TerrERU-Grass-G1). 

There would be a low likelihood that Great Basin Grassland ERU could be a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species. Likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

83

quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and 

thus would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 2 for alternative B (modified) which means that plan components 

maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

The management effect variable 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. Alternative B (modified) has a higher viability effectiveness than 

alternative A because alternative B (modified) distinguishes between the different grassland types 

and has an objective to restore/enhance between 10,800 and 12,400 acres of this ERU every 

10-year period during the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2). This alternative contributes 

more to the maintenance and sustainability of Great Basin Grassland than alternative A.

Alternative B (modified) clearly distinguishes between different grassland 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, 2, 3, 4; FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). Plan components for all terrestrial 

ERUs promote a mosaic of vegetation conditions, densities, and structures at different scales; 

ecosystems that are interconnected based on natural patterns; and restoration of desired 

disturbance regimes (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-1 to 5, FW-TerrERU-All-G-1, 3). Goals in the 

proposed revised plan have greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move toward desired 

conditions than alternative A. Goals promote: properly functioning ecosystems that are resilient to 

natural disturbances and climate change, the reduction of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic 

levels of invertebrates, (including pollinators), and disease with occasional outbreaks; and a 

balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies with properly functioning ecosystems 

(FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4). Goals include a mosaic of vegetation conditions, densities and structures 

and various scales that reflect natural disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptations 

to climate variability, connections based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, 

variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-1 to 4). 

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, 7, 8; FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-2; FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-1, 2). 

In addition to the 190 acres of Great Basin Grassland ERU in designated wilderness, there are an 

additional 2,327 acres of this ERU in the recommended Strawberry Crater Wilderness. 

Collectively, this is about 2.7 percent of the ERU. Impacts to the ERU from wilderness 

recommendation and the combination of designated wilderness plus recommended wilderness are 

unlikely to affect the ERU at the landscape level because of the small proportion affected. Plan 

components for recommended wilderness are generally protective. 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). 

Needed treatments could be conducted using motorized equipment until a wilderness designation 

decision is made, providing the treatments are consistent with wilderness character. If designated 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

84

by Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy and 

Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 

11). This designation typically limits active vegetation management and may have negative 

consequences with respect to meeting the ERU’s vegetation or watershed desired conditions over 

the 2,327 acres in the long term within the Strawberry Crater recommended wilderness. Under 

this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the landscape 

than in alternative A, allowing increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire 

and to restore fire-adapted ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). There are no additional acres of Great 

Basin Grassland in recommended wilderness other than those proposed in alternative B 

(modified). 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 

In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of alternative B (modified) would be guided 

by applicable forestwide or management area plan direction rather than plan components relating 

to recommended wilderness. 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 43,055 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland within the forest boundary. The 

Coconino NF manages about 23,656 acres (55 percent) of these acres. The portion not managed 

by the Coconino is primarily private and State, with a mix of county and other Federal (Navajo 

Army Depot) ownership. 

Table 16 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland ERU would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The 

abundance of Montane/Subalpine Grassland is categorized as Occasional because at 23,656 acres 

it occupies about 1.3 percent of the forest (table 16). Habitats classified as Occasional generally 

cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and are encountered occasionally.

Habitat Quality and Distribution

This ERU consists of two subtypes: Montane Grasslands and Subalpine Grasslands. Montane 

Grasslands occur above the Mogollon Rim and extend upward to about 7,800 feet in elevation 

and include locations such as Kendrick Park, Antelope Park, and Mule Park. Species in this 

subtype include: mutton grass, mountain muhly, spike muhly, Arizona fescue, blue grama, red 

threeawn, squirreltail, yarrow, and pine dropseed. 

Subalpine Grasslands typically occur above 7,800 feet in areas such as Freidlein Prairie on the 

San Francisco Peaks. Species in this subtype include: pine dropseed, nodding brome, various 

sedges, Arizona fescue, mountain junegrass, mountain muhly, muttongrass, and squirreltail. In 

both subtypes, trees may be present in trace amounts within the grasslands and along their 

periphery. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

85

There are about 150 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland in the Fern Mountain Botanical Area, 

26 acres in the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area, 11 acres in the Griffith Springs Environmental 

Study Area, and 43 acres in the Old Caves Crater Environmental Study Area. About 628 acres are 

in three designated wildernesses: Kachina Peaks (619 acres), Sycamore Canyon (6 acres), and 

West Clear Creek (3 acres).

A small portion of this ERU (9 acres) is in the addition to the San Francisco Peaks Research 

Natural Area that is proposed in alternative A.

According to reference conditions, Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU was less fragmented 

before land ownership changes occurred and there were no invasive or non-native plant species.

Its open vegetative structure was maintained mainly by fire entering from adjacent ERUs. Fire 

reduces the number of tree seedlings and saplings that establish in grasslands, especially along the 

perimeter. This ERU has a 0 to 35 year fire frequency and fires of high severity (more than 

75 percent of the dominant overstory replaced) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory replaced). 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 16 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Montane/Subalpine Grassland is classified as good. This means it 

has a low departure and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is similar to or only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. Vegetation 

structure is trending away from reference conditions due to fire exclusion. Current predicted fire 

return interval departure is high and trending away from reference conditions. The departures in 

composition and structure that resulted from fire exclusion include tree encroachment and 

alterations in the pattern and diversity of vegetation resulting from fire intrusions. The presence 

of a few invasive species that are ranked high for invasiveness, such as leafy spurge, also 

represent a departure from reference conditions. 

Soils in Montane Grassland are classified as poor, e.g. highly departed, with a trend toward 

reference. They have low vegetative ground cover, poor species composition and productivity, 

and show signs of extensive compaction and reduced ability to infiltrate water due to high levels 

of herbivory from elk, past grazing from livestock, past and current OHV and recreational 

impacts. In contrast, soils in the Subalpine Grassland subtype have more extensive vegetative 

ground cover, good species composition and plant productivity, and porous soils with high 

amounts of organic matter. They are in satisfactory soil condition with low departure and static 

trend. 

Table 16 shows that there is a moderate likelihood that Montane/Subalpine Grassland habitat 

could be limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the 

associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for 

vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

86

Table 16. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Black-footed ferret, 

Quality-Vegetation Fair, trending 

away

Good, trending 

away at short term 

then Fair, trending 

away at long term

Good, trending toward Western burrowing 

owl, Arizona 

sneezeweed, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, ferruginous 

Quality-Soil Montane: Poor, 

trending away 

Subalpine: 

Good, static

Montane: Poor, 

static

Subalpine: Good, 

static

Montane: Poor, 

trending toward

Subalpine: Good, 

trending toward

hawk, Alberta arctic, 

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog, pronghorn black 

dropseed, common 

moonwort, Hall’s 

milkweed

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate Low then Moderate Low

Management 

effect

3: Plan components 

maintain or improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Table 16 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Risk Factors

Fire exclusion within the ERU and adjacent fire-adapted ERUs. Non-native invasive plant 

species, such as leafy spurge can alter the natural fire return interval, fire regime, and soil 

condition, and can compete with native species. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 16. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species are addressed under 

the Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section 

above. 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

87

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, -3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

Almost 3 percent of the ERU is in designated wilderness. Designated wilderness areas would be 

managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness 

resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 

105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation 

limits most active vegetation management because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. 

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil 

compaction and soil loss, and can introduce non-native species that compete with native plants 

for resources. This can negatively affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or 

populations. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key 

points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion 

could occur depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere 

would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized 

or mechanized use. However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make 

them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return 

intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or 

establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward 

desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in 

the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive 

or non-native species which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

There are about 176 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU in two botanical areas:

Mogollon Rim and Fern Mountain. Off-road travel in botanical areas is not allowed in any 

alternative (1987 Plan, page 194; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility 

corridors would also avoid botanical areas (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would 

result in less disturbance to soil and plants, in less erosion and soil compaction, and eliminate 

habitat damage from these activities. Although protective, this would have a negligible effect 

because less than 1 percent of the ERU occurs within botanical areas.

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 16 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Montane/Subalpine Grassland is classified as 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

88

good, which means it has a low departure and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in 

distribution across the landscape is similar to or only slightly reduced relative to desired 

conditions. However, because fire exclusion would be expected to continue, vegetation quality 

would transition to fair in the long term and trend away. The continued lack of fire would allow 

trees and shrubs to further encroach, and there would be a corresponding decline in herbaceous 

species. Fire return interval is expected to remain moderate and also trend away from desired 

conditions. Composition, structure, and function are at risk in localized areas due to highly 

invasive plant species such as leafy spurge. 

Soil quality would be poor in the Montane Grassland subtype with a static trend relative to 

desired conditions. Historic and continued grazing by livestock and wildlife have contributed to 

areas with reduced surface litter and herbaceous production. Consequently, there is reduced 

nutrient cycling, reduced ability to infiltrate water, and an inability of the soil to resist erosion in 

about 69 percent of the ERU with impaired soil conditions. Soil quality is expected to remain 

unchanged due to continued grazing, especially by elk. Areas that are excluded from grazing 

would trend toward desired conditions. 

Soil quality would be good in the Subalpine Grassland subtype with a static trend relative to 

desired conditions. Litter, understory, and forage production are expected to remain high. 

Initially, there would be a low likelihood that Montane/Subalpine Grassland would be a limiting 

factor to the associated species, but as time goes on, the likelihood would transition to moderate 

as trees and shrubs continue to increase. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for 

habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of 

soil quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is 3 (table 16) because it lacks plan language for the different grassland 

types and plan language is outdated. For example there is an emphasis on forage species rather 

than ecological conditions. Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU and the viability of the associated species than the other 

alternatives.

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 forage species, but with no emphasis on native species (1987 Plan, page 

160). More recently amended sections of the plan, such as in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Area (FLEA), 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 (1987 Plan, pages 206-72, 78, 97, 98, 100; 206-103; 209-108; 206-114). This guidance 

is limited to the FLEA analysis area and does not apply forestwide. Alternative A has limited 

guidance on structure and function; however, there is some guidance related to invasive plants, 

soil, fire management, water resources, wildlife habitat, and range improvement (1987 Plan, 

pages 162-165, 206-72, 75 through 78, 206-89). Alternative A provides guidance to maintain and 

improve grasslands, including removing invading overstory, stabilizing gullies, scarifying soils, 

appropriate seeding, controlling livestock, raising the water table, reducing road and motorized 

use impacts, and re-introducing fire (1987 Plan, pages 159, 160, 164, 206-87 to 206-88). There 

are guidelines regarding relocation, obliteration, or closure of roads that are damaging or could 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

89

damage meadows (1987 Plan, pages 206-70, 206-77, 78, 206-116). The current plan also 

promotes the maintenance of seral grasslands in Management Area 10 and focuses on road and 

trail maintenance in damaged meadows in the Doney Management Area (1987 Plan, pages 206-

93). 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland, 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 WUI and in 

wilderness, and tree and shrub 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the landownership pattern is 

intermixed with different ownerships. Due to the small percentage of Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland ERU in designated wilderness, restrictions on access that might be needed to conduct 

vegetative treatments in wilderness would not affect the overall quality of the ERU.

There are 176 acres (less than 1 percent of the ERU) of Montane/Subalpine Grassland in 

designated botanical areas. 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). Special-use authorizations that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be 

allowed (1987 Plan, page 196). Adjacent roads would be managed to prevent vehicular intrusion, 

and road access would be blocked and obliterated (1987 Plan, page 196). 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, page196). The overall 

quality of this ERU would not be affected because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps 

designated botanical areas is small. 

There are 9 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland in one of the additions to the San Francisco 

Peaks Research Natural Area. Watershed condition and natural ecological conditions would be 

emphasized and protected and research natural areas would be assigned no grazing capacity 

(1987 Plan, pages 194 and 195). Even though this language is protective, the overall effect is 

negligible because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps the proposed research natural area is 

less than 1 percent of the ERU.

There are 54 acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland in environmental study areas (Old Caves 

Crater and Griffith Springs). The overall quality of this ERU would not be affected because the 

percentage of the ERU that overlaps the proposed research natural area is less than 1 percent of 

the ERU. The plan direction for these areas is generally protective. Plan components would 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, improve watershed health, restore bare soil areas, reduce 

soil compaction, close areas to motorized vehicles, and protect unique features using fencing or 

other means. Areas are not currently open to livestock grazing. Special-use authorizations (new or 

amendments) that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be allowed. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 197, 198, and 199. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

90

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 16 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Montane/Subalpine Grassland is 

classified as good with a trend toward desired conditions. This means it has a low departure and 

the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar to or 

only slightly reduced relative to desired conditions. Plan objectives would remove closed canopy 

trees and shrubs at a rate of between 7,600 and 11,400 acres every 10-year period over the life of 

the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O-3). Consequently, there would be more open conditions, and 

more herbaceous understory compared to alternative A. The rate of improvement would be faster 

under the higher treatment objective.

Soil condition and productivity for the Montane Grassland subtype would be poor under 

alternative B (modified), but there would be a trend toward desired conditions. Treatments would 

improve soil condition and maintain soil productivity. In treated areas, soil productivity and 

function would improve, so water infiltrates and disperses properly, withstands accelerated 

erosion, and recycles nutrients. Herbaceous cover would be improved or maintained at levels that 

contribute to hydrologic function, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. 

Soil quality for the Subalpine Grassland subtype would be good with a trend toward desired 

conditions. 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU has a low likelihood of being limiting to the associated 

species using vegetation quality. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, 

and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives. Alternative B (modified) 

contributes more to the maintenance and sustainability of Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU and 

the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

The management effect is a 2, because alternative B (modified) distinguishes between the 

different grassland types, has updated language compared to alternative A, and has an objective to 

restore or enhance this ERU. 

Desired conditions in alternative B (modified) have greater potential to reduce ERU departure 

and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. Desired conditions promote: properly 

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

of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators) and 

disease with occasional outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies 

with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4). Desired conditions include a mosaic 

of vegetation conditions, densities, and structures and various scales that reflect natural 

disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptions to climate variability, connections 

based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERUAll-DC-1 to 4). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) clearly distinguishes between different grassland 

types. Grassland 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). A guideline would require managers to protect or enhance grassland 

composition, structure, and productivity, and soil function (FW-TerrERU-Grass-G- 2). In 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

91

addition, mollisol soils would be managed toward grassland desired conditions in all pinyon 

juniper ERUs (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1). 

Plan components in the sections on Scenery, Grazing, and the Long Valley Management Area 

would also contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of this ERU. Soil function and longterm soil productivity would be additionally protected in the Long Valley Management Area 

through a guideline that would manage dispersed camping opportunities and motorized recreation 

outside the vicinity of meadows (MA-LongV-G-1). Evidence of physical impacts to meadows 

would be confined to specific areas such as road crossings, trail crossings, and access points (FWScenic-DC-5). Permanent and temporary road construction and relocation should avoid 

seasonally wet meadows and montane meadows (FW-RdsFac-G-5). Structural range 

improvements (such as fences, troughs, earthen stock ponds, and pipelines) should be located, 

constructed, reconstructed, maintained, and used in a manner consistent with the desired 

conditions for wet meadows and other sensitive resources (FW-Graz-G-4). 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness), allowing 

increased opportunities to move toward desired conditions, reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire, and restore fire-adapted ecosystems adjacent to grasslands (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2, FWWUI-DC-4). 

In contrast to alternative A, Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU does not occur in any research 

natural area in alternative B (modified). 

No acres of Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU occur in recommended wilderness under 

alternative B (modified). 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified) except for recommended wilderness. In 

addition to the 628 acres of Montane/Subalpine ERU in designated wilderness, there are an 

additional 6 acres of this ERU in the Railroad Draw recommended wilderness. Collectively, this 

is about 2.6 percent of the ERU on the forest. Impacts to the ERU from wilderness 

recommendation and the combination of designated wilderness plus recommended wilderness are 

unlikely to affect the ERU at the landscape level because of the small proportion affected. Plan 

components for recommended wilderness are generally protective. 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). 

Needed treatments could be conducted using motorized equipment until a wilderness designation 

decision is made, providing the treatments are consistent with wilderness character. If designated 

by Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 

Forest Plan direction (see Common to All Alternatives above). 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects related to Montane/Subalpine Grassland as alternative 

B (modified).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

92

Pinyon Juniper All

There are three pinyon juniper ERUs on Coconino NF: Pinyon Juniper with Grass (includes 

Juniper with Grass), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland (also called 

Pinyon Juniper (persistent). Pinyon juniper ERUs are dominated by one or more species of 

pinyon pine and/or juniper, and can occur with a grass and forb-dominated understory (i.e., 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU), a shrub-dominated understory (i.e., Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub ERU), or a sparse discontinuous understory of some grasses and/or shrubs (i.e., Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland ERU). Pinyon pine (including two-needle pinyon and single-leaf pinyon) is 

common as well as one-seed, Utah, redberry, Rocky Mountain, and alligator juniper and a lesser 

abundance of oaks. Species composition and stand structure vary by location primarily due to 

precipitation, elevation, topography, temperature, and soil type. In some locations, grassland soil 

types are interspersed with Pinyon Juniper soil types. Spreading, low-intensity surface fires had a 

very limited role in molding stand structure and dynamics of many or most pinyon and juniper 

communities in the historical landscape. However, where tree density is sparse and grass cover is 

significant, the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU may be an exception. 

Risk Factors 

Pinyon juniper forests throughout the Southwest continue to incur increased mortality as a result 

of drought and bark beetle activity (Breshears et al. 2005, USDA Forest Service 2015a). Pinyon 

juniper forests are water-limited systems, and pinyon juniper ecotones are sensitive to feedbacks 

from environmental fluctuations and existing canopy structure that may provide trees a buffer 

against drought. Severe multi-year droughts periodically cause dieback of pinyon pines, which 

may overwhelm local buffering (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The recent dieback is historically 

unprecedented in its combination of fire suppression, low precipitation, and high temperatures. 

Increased drought stress via higher temperatures is the predisposing factor, and pinyon pine 

mortality and fuel accumulations are inciting factors. These factors can lead to large severe fires 

that in turn lead to colonization of invasive species, which further compromises the ability of 

pinyon pines to re-establish (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Both localized and widespread 

mortality events have occurred over time in the pinyon juniper forests on the forest, typically 

being pinyon Ips outbreaks associated with periods of drought, such as occurred in the mid-1990s 

and 2001–2003 (Lynch et al. 2007). Bark beetles are natural disturbance agents and exist in the 

environment at endemic levels, but occasional eruptions can lead to high mortality in areas. 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 270,624 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU within the forest boundary; it is 

the third largest ERU on the forest. About 261,454 acres (97 percent) of this ERU is managed by 

the Coconino NF. The portion not managed by the forest is primarily private with a small amount 

of State ownership.

Table 17 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass ERU would be limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance is 

categorized as Common because at 261,454 acres, it occupies about 14 percent of the forest. 

Habitats classified as Common generally cover over 10 percent of the forest, and are abundant 

and frequently encountered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

93

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU generally occurs between 5,000 and 8,300 feet in upland and 

valley settings or where local conditions are inherently favorable for grasses. It is often found on 

moderately deep soils with gentle topography. Tree species includes: pinyon pine and Utah and 

one-seed juniper (which are most common) and alligator juniper at higher elevations. Its 

understory consists of annual and perennial grasses (with forbs) including: blue grama, needle 

and thread grass, and western wheatgrass. Shrubs may be present, but they are a minor 

component. Pinyon Juniper with Grass is characterized by low-severity to mixed-severity fire that 

occurs every 0 to 35 years. 

About 4,184 acres (about 2 percent) of this ERU are in the Strawberry Crater wilderness. There 

are about 1,152 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass in the Red Mountain Geological Area and 

64 acres in the Old Caves Crater Environmental Study Area.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 17 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper with Grass is classified as fair. This means it has a 

moderate departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness 

in distribution across the landscape is somewhat reduced relative to reference conditions. 

Vegetation quality is trending away from reference conditions, because there are currently more 

trees per acre and greater cover due to fire exclusion and weather patterns that have favored tree 

germination and establishment. 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. 

Areas that have been affected by the Ips bark beetle infestation over the past decade, however, are 

expected to trend toward reference conditions. 

Part of this ERU consists of soils with significant quantities of calcium carbonate and commonly 

have a pH of 8 or more (TES soil units 437 and 460). Soil unit 437 is derived from limestone 

parent material while soil unit 460 is derived from basalt. Soil disturbance in soil units 437 and 

460 could bring excessive amounts of calcareous soil to the surface. Soil unit 437 also has 

shallow soils and a high amount of surface rock fragments. Soil conditions in these soil types are 

assumed to be the same as in the rest of the ERU. Soil quality is good and it is trending away 

from reference conditions. Most of Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU has satisfactory or 

satisfactory, but inherently unstable soil conditions, and so are functioning normally. About 

28,512 acres (nearly 11 percent) have unsatisfactory soil conditions and 45,106 acres (about 

17 percent) have impaired soil conditions. Lack of fire has contributed to the development of 

areas with high canopy cover and loss of herbaceous understory. Herbaceous understory helps 

hold soil in place and carries fire. Current litter and plant cover is low, species composition is 

poor, and visual sheet and rill erosion are common in areas with high tree density. There is 

declined nutrient cycling, reduced ability to infiltrate water, and an inability of soil to resist 

erosion in about 28 percent of the ERU with impaired or unsatisfactory soil conditions especially 

where the canopy is more than about 30 to 40 percent. Some areas are eroding faster than they are 

renewing themselves, putting soil productivity at risk. It takes dozens of years to build one inch of 

soil in this ERU. The areas with low productivity are associated with unsatisfactory and impaired 

soils.

Table 17 shows that there is a low-moderate likelihood that Pinyon Juniper with Grass habitat 

could be limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the 

associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

94

vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.

Table 17. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper with Grass

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D 

Associated 

Species

Abundance Common Common Black-footed 

QualityVegetationFair, 

trending 

away

Fair, trending toward, 

but trends away in 

long term

Fair, trending toward then trends 

away (low objective) or static 

(high objective) in long term

ferret, western 

burrowing owl, 

disturbed 

Quality-Soil Good, 

trending

away

Good, static rabbitbrush, Mt. 

Dellenbaugh 

sandwort, 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

LowModerate Low-Moderate Sunset Crater 

beardtongue 

Management 

effect

3: Plan components 

maintain or improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

pinyon jay, 

Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, 

black dropseed, 

Jones' wild 

buckwheat, 

Yavapai wild 

buckwheat

Table 17 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Risk Factors

Non-native invasive plant species, such as annual grasses can alter the natural fire return interval 

and fire regime.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 17. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species is addressed under the 

Non-native or Invasive Species topic above in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section. 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

95

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and, once established, would compete with native 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, 2, 3; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3: FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-WFP-DC-10; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; 

FW-Rec-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. 

About 2 percent of Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU occurs in the Strawberry Crater Wilderness. 

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105-112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SAWild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management because 

motorized use and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill or 

damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can introduce 

non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively affect the 

reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing activities are 

primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species 

introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur, depending on the level of use. 

The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited 

access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or for safety or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of 

restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels 

of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or nonnative species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species that could then 

alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 17 shows 

that under alternative A, the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper with Grass is classified as fair, 

which means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and 

evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is somewhat reduced. Under the 

plan direction in alternative A, vegetation quality is initially expected to trend toward desired 

conditions, but in the long term would trend away from desired conditions. Expected mechanical 

treatments and burning using wildfire for resource objectives would result in a trend toward 

desired conditions initially. Vegetation modeling suggests there would be a lower proportion of 

large trees in open condition, and a lower proportion of uneven-aged open habitat than desired 

over the long term. Understory vegetation is expected to decrease in distribution and diversity as 

crown cover increases. Less sunlight would reach the forest floor, and availability of water and 

nutrients to understory plants would decline as tree cover increase. Conditions that favor a diverse 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

96

and robust understory would decline because generally the treatment level is insufficient to offset 

the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies in the long term. Fire return 

interval is expected to remain moderately departed with a trend away from the desired conditions. 

Soil condition and productivity would remain good with a static trend relative to desired 

conditions at both the low and high expected treatment levels. In thinned areas, soil condition 

should move toward desired condition with the return of an herbaceous understory. In areas that 

need treatment but are not thinned, soil condition is projected to move slowly away from desired 

conditions. 

There is a low-moderate likelihood that Pinyon Juniper with Grass could be a limiting factor to 

the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for 

habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of 

soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3, because alternative A does not distinguish between the three 

pinyon juniper types that occur on the forest that differ in composition, structure, and processes. 

Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper with Grass 

and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives.

The Plan provides little explicit direction on desired conditions for this ERU as it is lumped into 

the broad vegetation category of Pinyon Juniper, which is divided into two management areas 

based on slope. 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, 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, pages 148, 169). 

Direction in the current Forest Plan 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. 

Although prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass ERU, there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource 

objectives in the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic 

where the landownership pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. This is a negative 

impact on the composition and age class distribution of Pinyon Juniper with Grass. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

97

Plan components in alternative A are generally protective of the composition, structure, and 

function of the different vegetation types within geological 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 geological area was established. 

The plan direction for environmental study areas is generally protective. Improvements at Old 

Caves Crater would improve watershed health, restore bare soil areas, and close the area to 

motorized vehicles. Environmental study areas are not currently open to livestock grazing and 

special-use authorizations that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be allowed 

(1987 Plan, page 199). 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 17 shows 

that vegetation quality would be fair, the same as alternative A, under the low and high treatment 

objectives (FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1, 2). Under both treatment objectives, the trend initially moves 

toward desired conditions, but in the long term either remains nearly static or slowly moves away 

from desired conditions. The first objective would mechanically treat between 1,000 to 

10,000 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

The second objective would use naturally ignited fires to treat at least 3,750 acres of Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass within the natural fire regime during each 10-year period over the life of the 

plan. Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of 

the landscape (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) than in alternative A, allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). Modeling predicts that medium-sized trees 

with open canopies would increase and move toward the desired conditions (especially at the high 

treatment level) in the short and long term. In other size classes, seedlings/saplings, small trees, 

and very large trees with open canopies would approach desired conditions in the short term, but 

drop below desired conditions in the long term. This is because treatments at these levels would 

not maintain the desired open conditions as canopy cover and competition increased. The 

understory is predicted to increase in the short term, but decrease over time as tree growth and 

tree establishment exceed the treated acres. 

Soil condition and productivity would remain good with a static trend relative to desired 

conditions at both the low and high expected treatment levels. In thinned areas, soil condition 

should move toward desired condition (with a faster rate at the higher treatment level) with the 

return of an herbaceous understory. Over time, regeneration could fill in the openings, canopies 

could close, the understory would decrease and gains to soil condition and productivity could 

decrease. In areas that need treatment, but are not thinned, soil condition is projected to move 

slowly away from desired conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

98

There is a low-moderate likelihood that Pinyon Juniper with Grass could be a limiting factor to 

the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for 

habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of 

soil quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect would be a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the 

plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Unlike alternative A, this alternative updates pinyon juniper management by identifying three 

ERUs in the pinyon juniper forest type: Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland. ERU-specific plan components provide more explicit 

information for managers. A one-size-fits-all approach for pinyon juniper would not be 

appropriate, because the pinyon juniper ERUs differ in terms of species composition, structure, 

and fire regime. 

Implementation of desired conditions would result in structure and species composition that both 

reflect and support natural disturbance regimes. Scattered shrubs and an herbaceous understory 

consisting of native grasses, forbs, and annuals would support frequent surface fires. Plant 

composition would be similar to site potential at the landscape level, yet could vary considerably 

at the fine and mid-scale in response to differing seral stages (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-3, 4). Mollisol 

soils would be managed toward grassland desired conditions, which would stay within the natural 

potential of the site and provide spatial heterogeneity and increased biodiversity within the ERU 

(FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1) 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass would be generally uneven-aged and open, with varying age and size 

classes of trees distributed in groups, clumps, and individual trees (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-1). 

Old-growth components and structure would occur throughout the landscape as individual 

components or as clumps. They would shift in time and space as a result of succession and tree 

growth and mortality. Habitat and food for wildlife and their prey would be provided by snags 8 

inches and greater at diameter at root collar that would average five snags per acre and by snags 

18 inches and greater that would average one snag per acre (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-2, 5). To further 

assure the distribution and sustainability of old-growth forest components, the development of old 

growth would be encouraged in areas where it is lacking (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-5). 

Coarse woody debris would increase with succession and average 1 to 3 tons per acre. Plan 

components promote the retention of slash piles across the landscape for several years instead of 

being immediately burned where coarse woody debris is deficient. This would provide cover for 

various species of wildlife. However, scenic integrity objectives, bark beetles, big game 

movements, and fire and fuel concerns would be factors when considering the number and 

distribution of slash piles or scattered slash to be retained (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-2; FW-TerrERUPJ-G-4). Slash treatments would be used to improve herbaceous vegetation, watershed condition, 

and soil productivity in areas where there is little overstory. However, large accumulation of 

green material would be managed to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks 

(FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-2, 3). Coarse woody debris provides microsites for establishment of native 

vegetation, provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife species, is critical for soil 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

99

productivity and nutrient cycling, and important for soil condition and preventing accelerated soil 

erosion. 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). 

Overarching 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 nonnative species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby furthering 

sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4; FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). 

Under this alternative, the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would have approximately 3,618 acres 

included as part of the recommended Strawberry Crater wilderness, which is small fraction 

(1.4 percent) of the total ERU. While policy and forest plan direction for managing wilderness 

areas in alternative B (modified) make mechanical treatments unlikely to occur, the cinder soil 

type within these locations and lack of understory vegetation make wildfires less likely. Taken in 

combination, the relatively small area and the low likelihood of wildfire suggest that the 

recommended wilderness area would have little effect on vegetation or fire return interval 

departure. The recommended wilderness is within the known range of the endemic plant Sunset 

Crater beardtongue. The primitive setting benefits a variety of species and cultural resources. This 

would include the increased protection of Sunset Crater beardtongue (Penstemon clutei), a 

Southwestern Region sensitive species. Pronghorn would also benefit from reduced disturbance 

as a result of the primitive surroundings.

This ERU occurs within eight management areas. The largest is the Anderson Mesa Management 

Area that comprises approximately 50 percent of the ERU. The desired conditions in this 

management area provide for the needs of wildlife, such as antelope, by providing open areas and 

grasslands that allow them to move freely across the landscape (MA-AMesa-DC-3) and 

minimizing roads and trails (MA-AMesaDC-1). 

The second largest management area in the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU is the Volcanic 

Woodlands, comprising about 38 percent of the area. One of the desired conditions for this area is 

for large tracts of unroaded landscape in the Deadman Wash to provide remote recreational 

experience and to benefit disturbance sensitive species (MA-VolcanWd-DC-4). This would 

reduce ground-disturbing activities in this area, help maintain soil condition and productivity, and 

reduce the potential for accelerated soil erosion that could occur in response to motorized use. 

There are 1,152 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass in the Red Mountain geological area. Plan 

language in alternative B (modified) promotes protection and maintenance of the unique 

characteristics of geological areas and sustainability of their inherent physical and biological 

processes that are not negatively impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SARNABotGeo-DC-6; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). Fires and allotment management plans would be 

protective of the resources for which these areas were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). 

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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

100

Recreation and Transportation Suitability). Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be 

done for this direction to take effect. The overall quality of this ERU would not be affected 

because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps designated geological areas is small, however, 

the plan language is protective. 

There are 64 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass in the Old Caves Crater environmental study 

area. The plan direction for these areas is generally protective. For example, management 

activities and new special uses (and amendments) would be designed to retain and promote the 

character of these areas and to promote educational opportunities (MA-FlagN-G-1). New 

transmission corridors would avoid environmental study areas to protect the settings and 

educational resources (MA-FlagN-G-2), and educational opportunities would be consistent with 

resource desired conditions as well (MA-FlagN-DC-7). The overall quality of this ERU would 

not be affected by this management direction, because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps 

the environmental study area is less than 1 percent of the ERU.

Alternative C

Alternative C would have the same consequences as alternative B (modified), except mechanized 

use in botanical and geological areas would be not suitable. This plan language would remove 

soil and vegetation impacts to the trail prism from mechanized uses but foot traffic and horseback 

use could still be permissible. Subsequent environmental analysis would need to be done for this 

direction to take effect. Although the plan language is the most protective of the four alternatives 

and conditions could be improved in localized areas, the overall quality of this ERU would not be 

affected because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps designated botanical areas is small. 

Even though alternative C includes more total acres of recommended wilderness, the amount of 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU in recommended wilderness is the same as alternative B 

(modified). 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same consequences as alternative B (modified). There are no 

recommended wildernesses. In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of alternative B 

(modified) would be guided by applicable forestwide or management area plan direction rather 

than plan components relating to recommended wilderness. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 271,347 acres of Pinyon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU within the forest 

boundary; it is the second largest ERU on the forest. The Coconino NF manages about 

263,554 acres (97 percent) of these acres. The portion that is not managed by the forest is mainly 

private. 

Table 18 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub ERU would be limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as Common because at 271,347 acres it occupies 14 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as Common generally cover over 10 percent of the forest and are 

abundant and frequently encountered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

101

Habitat Quality and Distribution

This ERU usually occurs at elevations between 4,000 and 6,900 feet. It usually occupies hills, 

plains, mountains, and escarpments below the Mogollon Rim. This ERU is dominated by open to 

closed shrub canopy of evergreen oaks, such as turbinella oak, some tree forms of Emory and 

Arizona white oak, and Stansbury cliffrose. Codominant species include single-needle pinyon 

pine and Utah juniper, and some areas contain alligator juniper and Arizona cypress. A grassy 

understory may be present in areas with decreased tree cover, and herbaceous ground cover is 

dominated by warm season grasses including blue and side oats grama and needle and thread 

grass. Pinyon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub is characterized by mixed-severity fire that occurs every 

35 to 200+ years. 

Portions of this ERU are located in the Verde Valley, which has the highest density of 

archaeological sites (including prehistoric agricultural fields) on the forest. Certain agave species 

were cultivated by pre-Columbian farmers dating to at least A.D. 600 and probably were 

exchanged and moved along prehistoric trade routes (Hodgson 1999). Some of these agaves 

persist in this ERU and are associated with archaeological sites.

There are 47,893 acres (about 18 percent of the ERU) within seven designated wildernesses: 

Fossil Springs (5,329 acres), Mazatzal (2,106 acres), Munds Mountain (10,554 acres), Red RockSecret Mountain (10,394 acres), Sycamore Canyon (5,094 acres), West Clear Creek (8,652 acres), 

and Wet Beaver (5,763 acres). 

There are about 602 acres (less than 1 percent) of this ERU in the Casner Canyon Research 

Natural Area. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 18 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper with Grass is classified as fair. This means it has a 

moderate departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness 

in distribution across the landscape is somewhat reduced relative to reference conditions. In 

reference conditions, Pinyon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub was dominated by shrubs and medium to 

very large open, grown trees, and invasive exotic species were not present. Vegetation quality is 

considered fair because there are currently more closed tree canopies and less herbaceous 

vegetation than what was present historically. This is due to fire exclusion. The fire return interval 

departure is high and trending away from reference conditions. There are a few invasive weed 

species but these are few in number and acreage.

Soil quality is fair and trending away from reference conditions. 

Table 18 shows that there is a low-moderate likelihood that Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 

habitat could be limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to 

the associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value 

for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

102

Table 18. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub by alternative

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Common Common Flagstaff beardtongue, 

QualityVegetationFair, trending 

away

Fair, trending away Phillip’s (Grand Canyon) 

agave, Metcalfe’s tick trefoil, 

Quality-Soil Fair, trending 

away

Fair, trending 

away

Poor, trending slowly 

toward desired conditions 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, 

Page Springs agave, Rusby’s 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

LowModerate Low-Moderate milkwort, Tonto Basin agave, 

Verde Valley sage, pinyon jay, 

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management 

for some 

habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area.

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.

basin bladderpod, black 

dropseed, MacDougal’s aletes 

Mearn’s lotus, skunk-top 

scurfpea, western mousetail

Table 18 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Risk Factors

Fire exclusion and non-native invasive plant species.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 18. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species are addressed in the 

Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section. 

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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, would compete with native 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

103

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; FW Invas-G-1, 2, -3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

About 18 percent of the ERU is in designated wilderness. Designated wilderness areas would be 

managed according to applicable laws, policy and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness 

resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 

105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation 

limits most active vegetation management because motorized use and mechanized use is not 

allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat 

through soil compaction and soil loss, and can introduce non-native species that compete with 

native plants for resources. This can negatively affect the reproduction and survival of individual 

plants or populations. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, 

trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or 

accelerated erosion could occur depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing 

activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and 

dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited access associated with designated 

wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments 

or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in 

missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs 

and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the 

trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas 

more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or 

establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire 

regime, and biodiversity. 

All alternatives include guidance for management of research natural areas that would be 

beneficial for Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub by allowing natural processes and natural 

conditions to prevail. This guidance would minimize recreational impacts by restricting camping, 

prohibiting recreation fires and limiting non-commercial group size (1987 Plan, page 196-1, SARNABotGeo-S-1, SA-RNABotGeo-G-6). In addition, access should be restricted as needed to 

maintain their natural, unmodified condition and commercial tours would be prohibited except in 

support of approved research (1987 Plan, page 196-2, SA-RNABotGeo-S-2). This guidance 

would reduce the potential for human-caused fires and maintain the natural conditions for which 

the RNA was designated, which include properly functioning soils and vegetation. This guidance 

would also mitigate soil compaction, soil loss, and vegetation damage from some recreational 

activities. Designated wilderness direction would prevail in the West Clear Creek RNA. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 18 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub is classified as 

fair, which means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and 

evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is somewhat reduced. Under the 

plan direction in alternative A, vegetation quality is expected to trend away from desired 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

104

conditions. Increasing tree density and canopy cover is predicted to continue with the negative 

effect of shading the understory and maintaining more small to medium-sized trees than desired. 

This would negatively affect the structure, composition, and function of the ERU and increase the 

risk of insect and disease outbreaks. In addition, there would be a higher potential for more of the 

ERU to burn at the high end of the range for mixed-severity fires. This could result in accelerated 

soil erosion and facilitate the establishment of invasive plant species, like cheatgrass, which can 

alter the fire regime and timing of fires.

Soil condition and productivity would remain fair with a trend away from desired conditions. 

About 43 percent of the ERU has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil 

conditions. In these areas, soil is functioning properly. Impaired soil conditions would remain in 

about 57 percent of the ERU, especially where there is higher canopy cover and loss of 

herbaceous understory. This is primarily due to lack of fire. In these areas, there is declined 

nutrient cycling, reduced ability to infiltrate water, and an inability of soil to resist erosion.

There is a low-moderate likelihood that Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub could be a limiting 

factor to the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the 

value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used 

instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3, because alternative A does not distinguish between the three 

pinyon juniper types that occur on the forest, which differ in composition, structure, and 

processes. Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives.

The 1987 Plan provides little explicit direction on desired conditions for this ERU. The different 

pinyon juniper types are combined into one broad category of Pinyon Juniper, which is divided 

into two management areas based on slope. Plan language emphasize 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; 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, pages 148, 169). 

Direction in the current Forest Plan 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). 

In alternative A, the Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU occurs in 23 management areas (MAs) 

However, about 61 percent of the ERU overlaps Pinyon Juniper Woodlands less than 40 percent 

slope (MA 7), Verde Valley (MA 11), and Grassland and Sparse Pinyon Juniper above the Rim 

(MA 10). 

Management Area 7 direction promotes prescribed fire and seeding to be used to achieve resource 

objectives on the more gentle slopes (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 species could be included in the seed mix and these could disrupt the fire 

regime, hydrology, and compete with native species. Management Area 7 provides for portions of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

105

the area to be managed as seral grasslands. Techniques discussed to maintain these areas include 

mechanical, chemical, and prescribed fire (1987 Plan, page 150). There are no records indicating 

that chemical or prescribed fire have been used to maintain seral grasslands in these areas. 

Mechanical treatments have occurred on a limited basis. 

Stand diversity standards and guidelines in Management Area 7 provide for bear habitat and 

stands of old growth from 100 to 300 acres. These areas would be sufficient in size to provide 

habitat for species dependent on the forest interior for habitat (1987 Plan, page 151). However, 

according to the Vegetation and Fire section in Volume I of the FEIS, concentrating old growth in 

unnaturally large areas on steeper slopes rather than encouraging old-growth components in small 

areas throughout the ERU does not meet desired conditions. The development of old-growth 

components would be slower than could be otherwise achieved if mechanical treatment could 

occur throughout the ERU. Important habitat components such as alligator juniper and pine 

stringers would be managed for the benefit of wildlife (1987 Plan, page 154). 

Management Area 10 is made up of the grasslands and pinyon juniper with less than 10 percent 

cover above the Mogollon Rim and a small portion of the transition zone (ecotone) between 

ponderosa pine and pinyon juniper, primarily on Anderson Mesa. The area includes a few 

stringers of ponderosa pine and ecotones between grass and pinyon juniper lands. The majority of 

the area is pinyon juniper that has been treated and is in the seral grassland stage. The area is 

important wildlife winter range, as well as year-round antelope range, and is used primarily as 

grazing land for both livestock and wildlife. Direction for Management Area 10 emphasizes the 

use of prescribed fire to achieve management objectives associated with range, watershed 

condition, and wildlife habitat; control of undesirable plant species; improvement of 

unsatisfactory range conditions; maintenance of seral grasslands where type conversions have 

occurred in the past except some wildlife corridors may be allowed to develop (1987 Plan, pages 

162 to 165). Most of the language protects soil and vegetation except the emphasis on seral 

grasslands would not contribute to the maintenance or sustainability of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub. 

The management emphasis for Management Area 11 is watershed condition, range management, 

wildlife habitat for upland game birds, and dispersed recreation (1987 Plan, page 166). Standards 

and guidelines allow for removal of undesirable plant species to maintain pronghorn habitat 

(1987 Plan, page 168). Plan language prioritizes improvement in watersheds in unsatisfactory 

condition, which could improve vegetation and soil conditions. Range management focuses on 

less than satisfactory range conditions, broadcast seeding following burning to increase 

production (for livestock), 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. 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 and other soil types and could lead to increased erosion. 

Alternative A specifies that the seed mix should be shade-tolerant and a mix of warm and cool 

season grasses, but does not specify that the seed mix should be native. 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. However, vegetative 

treatments to improve Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub would be reviewed for soil potential for 

revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment. The Verde Formation and other soils could 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

106

be avoided or mitigation measures could be employed to avoid severe impairment of soil 

productivity (1987 Plan, pages 166, 168, 169). 

Although prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU, there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource 

objectives in the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 tree density would be expected 

to increase in these areas.

There are 639 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in the proposed West Clear Creek 

Research Natural Area. The research natural area is located in the West Clear Creek Wilderness.

Ongoing uses include recreation. Users seeking to escape the overcrowding in the Fossil Creek 

Area or a more remote experience may use this area. This research natural area was proposed in 

alternative A, but the designation was never completed and there is no known research occurring 

within it.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 18 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub is 

classified as fair with a trend away from the desired conditions, the same as alternative A. A plan 

objective would have at least 3,750 acres treated over each 10-year period over the life of the plan 

with wildfires managed for resource objectives, within the natural fire regime (FW-TerrERU-PJO-3). As with alternative A, increasing tree density and canopy cover is predicted to continue and 

eventually would shade the understory and maintain a higher amount of small to medium-sized 

trees than desired. This would negatively affect the structure, composition, and function of the 

ERU. Consequences include increased risk of insect and disease outbreaks and higher potential 

for more of the ERU to burn at the high end of the range for mixed-severity fires. This could 

result in accelerated soil erosion and facilitate the establishment of invasive plant species, like 

cheatgrass, which can alter the fire regime and timing of fires.

Soil condition and productivity would be poor under alternative B (modified) and trend slowly 

toward desired conditions. As with alternative A, about 43 percent of the ERU has satisfactory or 

satisfactory but inherently unstable soil conditions. In these areas, soil is functioning properly. 

Impaired soil conditions would remain in about 57 percent of the ERU, especially where there is 

higher canopy cover and loss of herbaceous understory. This is primarily due to lack of fire. In 

these areas there is declined nutrient cycling, reduced ability to infiltrate water and an inability of 

soil to resist erosion. It is not known whether the treatment objective would target impaired soil 

conditions, because it is dependent on the location of ignitions, conditions at the time of ignition, 

and resources at risk. 

Under alternative B (modified), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub has a low-moderate likelihood 

of being limiting to the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value 

for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead 

of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

107

Management effect is a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area, 

and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Desired conditions in alternative B (modified) have greater potential to reduce ERU departure 

and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. Desired conditions promote: properly 

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

of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators) and 

disease with occasional outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies 

with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4). Desired conditions include a mosaic 

of vegetation conditions, densities, and structures and various scales that reflect natural 

disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptions to climate variability, connections 

based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERUAll-DC-1 to 4). 

Unlike alternative A, this alternative updates pinyon juniper management by identifying three 

ERUs in the pinyon juniper forest type: Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland. ERU-specific plan components provide more explicit 

information for managers. A one-size-fits-all approach for pinyon juniper would not be 

appropriate because the pinyon juniper ERUs differ in terms of species composition, structure, 

and fire regime. 

Implementation of desired conditions would result in structure and species composition that both 

reflect and support natural disturbance regimes. A mix of trees and shrubs would occur as a series 

of vegetation states that shift from herbaceous dominated to shrub dominated to tree dominated. 

Groups would be even-aged in structure with all ages represented across the landscape for an 

overall uneven-aged grouped appearance (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-6). Alternative B (modified) 

describes the fire regime more accurately than alternative A: mixed severity (Fire Regime III) 

although some evergreen shrub types would have occasional high-severity fires (Fire Regime IV) 

(FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-8). 

Plant composition would be similar to site potential at the landscape level yet could vary 

considerably at the fine and mid-scale in response to differing seral stages. The understory would 

be dominated by low to moderate density of shrubs, depending on seral stage. The interspaces 

would support native grasses and forbs (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-9). Mollisol soils would be 

managed toward grassland desired conditions, which would stay within the natural potential of 

the site and provide spatial heterogeneity and increased biodiversity within the ERU (FWTerrERU-PJ-G-1) 

Old-growth components and structure would occur throughout the landscape as individual 

components or as clumps. They would shift in time and space as a result of succession and tree 

growth and mortality. Habitat and food for wildlife and their prey would be provided by snags 

8 inches and greater at diameter at root collar that would average three snags per acre and by 

snags 18 inches and greater that would average one snag per acre (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-5, 7). To 

further assure the distribution and sustainability of old-growth forest components, the 

development of old growth would be encouraged in areas where it is lacking (FW-TerrERU-PJG-5). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

108

Coarse woody debris would average 2 to 4 tons per acre. Plan components promote the retention 

of slash piles across the landscape for several years instead of being immediately burned where 

coarse woody debris is deficient. This would provide cover for various species of wildlife; 

however, scenic integrity objectives, bark beetles, big game movements, and fire and fuel 

concerns would be factors when considering the number and distribution of slash piles or 

scattered slash to be retained (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-4). Slash treatments would be used to improve 

herbaceous vegetation, watershed condition, and soil productivity in areas where there is little 

overstory; however, large accumulations of green material would be managed to reduce the risk 

of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-2, 3). Coarse woody debris 

provides microsites for establishment of native vegetation, provides food and cover for a variety 

of wildlife species, is critical for soil productivity and nutrient cycling, and important for soil 

condition and preventing accelerated soil erosion. 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2, FW-WUI-DC-4). 

Plan components direct managers to reduce fire hazard, intensity, and severity in order to protect 

human life and property (FW-WUI-DC-1, 2, FW-Fire-DC-1, 2). When wildland-urban interface

intersects with a mixed- or high-severity fire regime like Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, 

characteristic ecosystem function would be modified to promote low-severity surface fires that 

rarely spread as crown fire; forests in the wildland-urban interface would be dominated by early 

seral, fire-adapted species growing in a more open condition than the general forest; and 

wildland-urban interface may have a higher frequency of disturbance from prescribed burning, 

wildfires managed for resource objectives, and/or vegetative treatments than the natural 

disturbance regime (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 7, 8). This proportion of the ERU would move away from 

desired conditions and may result in a different species composition and structure than what 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub is adapted to. This departure could be mitigated by promoting 

wildland-urban interface conditions (fuel loading, basal area, logs, snags) at the lower end of the 

range given in the vegetation community desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-5, 9). This departure 

could be mitigated by spatially arranging these structural components to reduce fire hazard and 

increase suppression success, and allowing fuel loading or tree densities at the higher end of the 

range where it provides for important fine-scale habitat structure or cover as long as it meets the 

overall intent of protecting wildland-urban interface values-at-risk (FW-WUI-DC-10; FW-WUIG-1). 

There are 723 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in Davey’s recommended wilderness, 

which is bounded on one side by the existing Fossil Creek Wilderness. Recommended wilderness 

would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited 

administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized 

uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. However, new 

trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that preserve 

wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses, 

which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by Congress, the wilderness areas 

would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 11). However, limited access 

associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could preclude restoration treatments 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

109

that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. 

Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether restoration treatments might 

be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return

intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or 

establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward

desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in 

the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive 

or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

This ERU occurs within 7 proposed management areas (Pine Belt, Red Rock, Oak Creek Canyon, 

House Mountain-Lowlands, Sedona Neighborwoods, Verde Valley, and Long Valley). 

Approximately 77 percent is within Verde Valley (62 percent) and Red Rock (15 percent) 

management areas. 

The area covered by the Verde Valley MA is different between alternatives. Under alternative B 

(modified), desired conditions in the Verde Valley MA would maintain or improve the 

sustainability of this ERU by managing watersheds to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic flooding 

and sedimentation, by emphasizing resource protection in areas used for dispersed recreation, and 

by preventing the introduction of diseases, invasive or undesirable species (MA-VerdeV-DC-1, 4; 

MA-VerdeV-G-1, 2). 

The Red Rock MA is located on either side of Sedona and adjoins House Mountain-Lowlands, 

Pine Belt, Oak Creek Canyon, Sedona Neighborwoods, and Verde Valley Management Areas. It 

includes many of the scenic vistas that are famous throughout the region. This management area

contains guidance for networks of motorized and non-motorized trails in the area, while 

protecting the fragile natural resources of the area (MA-RedRock-DC-3). Another beneficial 

desired condition would promote a balance between recreation experiences and natural resources 

(MA-RedRock-DC-2). As in the Verde Valley MA, this guidance may help protect resources by 

protecting sensitive soils and preventing the introduction of invasive or undesirable species. 

Commercial plant collecting would be prohibited in the management area (MA-RedRock–S-6). 

This continues guidance from the current plan (alternative A) and would reduce collection 

pressures in this area. This does not apply to other commercial forest products, which would be 

regulated by permit and would occur in designated locations only. This important distinction 

would allow consideration of vegetation treatments to achieve the desired conditions of the ERU. 

The prohibition of horse and pack stock, except for limited administrative use, could reduce 

vegetation and soil impacts from this recreational use. This prohibition applies to the Fay Canyon, 

Wilson Mountain, West Fork of Oak Creek, Devil’s Bridge, and Boynton Canyon Trails (MARedRock-S-9). 

There are 915 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub in the proposed West Clear Creek 

Research Natural Area, but the proposed research natural area is larger and in a different location 

than was proposed in alternative A. Under this alternative, the research natural area would be 

encompassed by the West Clear Wilderness. Although guidance for proposed research natural 

areas would apply, such as preservation of ecological features and biodiversity values of the area 

(SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1), providing a baseline for ecological changes (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-2), 

and allowing opportunities for study, while not modifying the conditions of the area (SARNABotGeo-DC-4), wilderness direction would prevail. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

110

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except a total of 13 wildernesses 

are recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 47,893 acres of Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 

in designated wilderness, there are 50,164 acres in recommended wilderness. The recommended 

wilderness acres are distributed among 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). There would be about 37 percent of the ERU 

in either designated or recommended wilderness. Recommended wilderness would reduce 

impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited administrative 

and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that 

maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. However, new trails 

should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that preserve wilderness 

character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan components would 

reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses, which could be 

beneficial to associated species. If designated by Congress, the wilderness areas would be 

managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; 

SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 11). However, limited access associated with 

recommended (and designated) wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Sitespecific circumstances would also influence which or whether restoration treatments might be 

precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, 

increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment 

and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions 

or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other 

alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or nonnative species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified), except there are no recommended 

wildernesses. In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of alternative B (modified) 

would be guided by applicable forestwide or management area plan direction rather than plan 

components relating to recommended wilderness. 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are 77,186 acres of this ERU within the forest boundary. About 75,439 acres (4 percent) is

managed by the Coconino NF, with most of the remaining 2 percent in private ownership. 

Table 19 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland ERU would be a limiting factor to the viability for the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as Occasional because, at 75,439 acres, it occupies a little over 

4 percent of the forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the 

forest and are occasionally encountered.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

111

Habitat Quality and Distribution

This ERU (also called Persistent Pinyon Juniper Woodland) generally occurs at elevations 

between 3,000 and 7,500 feet and covers approximately 75,439 acres (approximately 4 percent of 

the forest). Pinyon Juniper Woodland is characterized by high-severity fire that occurs every 35 to 

200+ years. 

It is located mainly in the northern and eastern portions of the forest on the lower slopes of 

mountains and upland rolling hills. This ERU ranges from sparse stands of scattered, small trees 

growing on poor substrates to relatively dense stands of large trees on more productive sites. 

However, tree density and cover may fluctuate in response to disturbance and climatic variability. 

Tree species include: pinyon pine and Utah and one-seed juniper (which are most common) and 

alligator juniper at higher elevations. Shrubs may include: Stansbury cliffrose, Gambel oak, 

saltbrush, big sagebrush, and limited areas of turbinella oak and manzanita. Understory species is 

mostly comprised of annual and perennial grasses including: blue grama, needle and thread grass, 

and western wheatgrass. Natural disturbances in Pinyon Juniper Woodland include endemic 

levels of insects and disease and wildfire. 

There are 5,200 acres (about 7 percent of the ERU) within six designated wildernesses: mainly in 

Strawberry Crater Wilderness (3,515 acres), Munds Mountain Wilderness (350 acres), Red RockSecret Mountain (565 acres), West Clear Creek (444 acres), Sycamore Canyon (238 acres), and 

Fossil Springs (12 acres). 

A small portion of this ERU is in the proposed West Clear Creek Research Natural Area: 85 acres 

under alternative A; 74 acres under alternatives B (modified), C, and D. 

According to reference conditions, Pinyon Juniper Woodland was mostly open with a mosaic of 

small, medium, and large trees overtopping an herbaceous understory. Fires were more frequent 

and generally did not “thin from below” (i.e., they did not kill predominantly small trees), but 

rather tended to kill all or most of the trees, regardless of size, within the places that burned. In 

addition, invasive exotic species were not present. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 19 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper Woodland is classified as good. This means it has a 

low departure and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is similar to or only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. The ERU’s trend 

from reference conditions varies. Areas that are overstocked with trees are expected to trend away 

and the remaining areas are expected to have a static trend. Currently, there is an overall shift 

toward small and medium-sized trees with loss of herbaceous understory and large trees with 

open canopy, mainly because of a history of fire suppression activities. This ERU is rated low for 

departure with respect to weeds.

Soil is in fair condition, probably due to fire suppression and loss of understory vegetation that 

would have carried fire. It is trending away from reference condition due to drought, continued 

fire suppression, and few vegetative treatments or natural disturbances. Some areas have greater 

than about 40 percent canopy cover contributing to impaired soil functions. Current surface litter 

and plant cover is low, species composition is poor, forage production is low, and visual sheet and 

rill erosion are common, especially in areas with high tree density or with impaired or 

unsatisfactory soil conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

112

Table 19 shows that there is a low likelihood that Pinyon Juniper Woodland habitat could be 

limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated 

species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation 

quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality because vegetation is assumed to 

respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and thus would better reflect differences 

between alternatives.

Table 19 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 19. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Pinyon Juniper Woodland by alternative

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Navajo Mogollon 

QualityVegetationGood, 

static trend

Good, static trend vole, pinyon jay, 

Arizona phlox, 

Quality-Soil Fair, 

trending 

away

Fair, trending 

away

Fair, trending slowly toward Arizona sunflower, 

Sunset Crater 

beardtongue

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Low Low

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area. 

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.

Risk Factors

Fire exclusion has resulted in increased tree density and a substantial shift to small and medium 

sized trees as well as reduced understory species cover and diversity. Non-native or invasive plant 

species, such as annual grasses, can alter the natural fire return interval and fire regime.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 19. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species are addressed under 

the Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

113

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, -3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

About 7 percent of the ERU is in designated wilderness. Designated wilderness areas would be 

managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness 

resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 

105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation 

limits most active vegetation management because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. 

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil 

compaction and soil loss, and can introduce non-native species that compete with native plants 

for resources. This can negatively affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or 

populations. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key 

points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion 

could occur, depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere 

would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized 

or mechanized use. However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make 

them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return 

intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or 

establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward

desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in 

the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive 

or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

All alternatives include guidance for management of research natural areas that would be 

beneficial for Pinyon Juniper Woodland by allowing natural processes and natural conditions to 

prevail. This guidance would minimize recreational impacts by restricting camping, prohibiting 

recreation fires, and limiting non-commercial group size (1987 Plan, page 196-1, SARNABotGeo-S-1, SA-RNABotGeo-G-6). In addition, access should be restricted as needed to 

maintain their natural, unmodified condition, and commercial tours would be prohibited except in 

support of approved research (1987 Plan, page 196-2, SA-RNABotGeo-S-2). This guidance 

would reduce the potential for human-caused fires and maintain the natural conditions for which 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

114

the RNA was designated, which include properly functioning soils and vegetation. This guidance 

would also mitigate soil compaction, soil loss, and vegetation damage from some recreational 

activities. Designated wilderness direction would prevail in the West Clear Creek RNA. 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERU occurs in three seasonal closure areas: the Ladders Bald Eagle 

Seasonal closure Area (127 acres), Rattlesnake (752 acres), and Woods (369 acres). These areas 

would be closed seasonally under all alternatives (1987 Plan, page 167 and Off-Road Driving 

Management Plan associated with 1987 Plan; MA-VerdeV-DC-7; MA-VerdeV-S-1; MAPineBelt-DC-6, 7; MA-PineBelt-S-2, 3). The closures are designed to provide undisturbed habitat 

for the protection of nesting bald eagles and to minimize disturbance to big game winter habitat. 

This would reduce soil or vegetation impacts that could result from motorized used during the 

closure periods.

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 19 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper Woodland is classified as good, 

which means it has a low departure and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in 

distribution across the landscape is similar to or only slightly reduced relative to reference 

conditions. Under the plan direction in alternative A, vegetation quality is expected to have a 

static trend relative to desired conditions. Increasing tree density and canopy cover is predicted to 

continue. This high tree density and cover would be expected to continue over extensive areas.

This condition is appropriate for the ERU, and would support the historic fire regime of 

infrequent high-severity fires. 

Soil condition and productivity would be fair with a trend away from desired conditions. About 

40 percent of the ERU has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil conditions. In 

these areas, soil is functioning properly. Impaired soil conditions would remain in about 

60 percent of the ERU, especially where there is higher canopy cover and loss of herbaceous 

understory. This is primarily due to lack of fire. In these areas there is declined nutrient cycling, 

reduced ability to infiltrate water, and an inability of soil to resist erosion.

There is a low likelihood that Pinyon Juniper Woodland could be a limiting factor to the viability 

of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, 

and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3, because alternative A does not distinguish between the three 

pinyon juniper types that occur on the forest that differ in composition, structure, and processes. 

Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper Woodland 

and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives.

The 1987 Plan provides little explicit direction on desired conditions for this ERU. The different 

pinyon juniper types are combined into one broad category of Pinyon Juniper, which is divided 

into two management areas based on slope. 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; 162 to 165). There is an emphasis on 

prescribed burning and individual tree removal to achieve range improvements (1987 Plan, page 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

115

164) as well as mechanical treatment of vegetation, emphasizing sustained-yield for firewood and 

miscellaneous convertible products (1987 Plan, pages 148, 169). 

Direction in the current Forest Plan 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). This would 

not result in well-distributed habitat components. 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland occurs in 24 different management areas (MAs) in this alternative, but 

primarily in MAs 7, 8, and 11. Thirteen percent falls within the Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem (10 

individual management areas plus area-wide direction). 

Management Area 7 includes slopes less than 40 percent. Plan direction promotes prescribed fire 

and seeding to be used to achieve resource objectives on the more gentle slopes (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 species could be included in the 

seed mix, and these could disrupt the fire regime, hydrology, and compete with native species. 

Stand diversity standards and guidelines in Management Area 7 provide for stands of old growth 

from 100 to 300 acres. These areas are intended to provide habitat for species dependent on the 

forest interior for habitat (1987 Plan, pages 148, 151,152). According to the Vegetation and Fire 

section in Volume I of the FEIS, large old-growth stands would meet desired conditions for this 

ERU; however, concentrating old growth on steeper slopes and limiting mechanical treatments to 

slopes less than 15 percent would slow the development of old-growth components compared to 

allowing mechanical treatment throughout the ERU. Small mammals and birds would benefit 

with the retention of three unburned piles per acre on areas with piled slash. These piles would 

provide cover. Important habitat components such as alligator juniper and pine stringers would be 

managed for the benefit of wildlife (1987 Plan, page 154). 

Management Area 8 includes the pinyon juniper woodlands on slopes over 40 percent. Steep 

canyons and volcanic slopes make the area unsuitable for many uses such as firewood cutting and 

some kinds of recreation. Most of the area is old growth because it has not been cut and fire has 

been excluded. The management emphasis is wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and dispersed 

recreation (1987 Plan, page 156). The area is not assigned any grazing capacity due to slopes and 

forest products are generally not removed. Prescribed fire using planned and unplanned ignitions 

is used to accomplish resource objectives, except there is no provision for unplanned ignitions in 

areas included in wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, page 157). 

The management emphasis for Management Area 11 is watershed condition, range management, 

wildlife habitat for upland game birds, and dispersed recreation (1987 Plan, page 166). Standards 

and guidelines allow for removal of undesirable plant species to maintain antelope habitat (1987 

Plan, page 168). Plan language prioritizes improvement in watersheds in unsatisfactory condition 

which could improve vegetation and soil conditions. Range management focuses on less than 

satisfactory range conditions, broadcast seeding following burning to increase production (for 

livestock), 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. This direction does not move this ERU toward the ecologically based desired 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

116

conditions in alternative B (modified). Scarification would disturb the soil surface and could lead 

to increased erosion. Alternative A specifies that the seed mix should be shade-tolerant and a mix 

of warm and cool season grasses, but does not specify that the seed mix should be native. 

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. 

However, vegetative treatments to improve Pinyon Juniper Woodland would be reviewed for soil 

potential for revegetation and erosion potential prior to treatment. Sensitive soils could be 

avoided or mitigation measures could be used to avoid severe impairment of soil productivity 

(1987 Plan, pages 166, 168, 169). 

Sedona/Oak Creek ecosystem-wide plan direction contributes to the sustainability of Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland by including provisions to conserve or restore natural ecosystem disturbance 

patterns; promoting the natural ecological role of fire within the constraints of human health and 

safety; and managing the mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic 

fires (1987 Plan, page 206-9). There are goals to expand the use of prescribed fire and other 

mechanical methods to achieve area goals and to utilize fire management to reduce fuels, restore 

ecosystem function and protect resource values (1987 Plan, page 206-11). Guidelines restrict 

prescribed burning so prevailing winds do not inundate active peregrine falcon nests during the 

breeding season and restrict fuel reduction activities that use motorized equipment at least one 

quarter mile from active peregrine falcon nests to reduce activity and noise related impacts during 

the breeding season (1987 Plan, page 206-13). Depending on site-specific circumstances, these 

timing restrictions could slow or not affect progress toward desired conditions. 

Although prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland ERU, there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives 

in the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 tree density would be expected to increase in 

these areas, which could increase vulnerability to uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects or disease.

There are 85 acres of Pinyon Juniper Woodland in the proposed West Clear Creek Research 

Natural Area. The proposed RNA is within the West Clear Creek Wilderness. Ongoing uses 

include recreation. Users seeking to escape the overcrowding in the Fossil Creek Area or a more 

remote experience may use this area. This RNA was proposed in alternative A, but the 

designation was never completed and there is no known research occurring within it. 

Alternative B (modified)

Under alternative B (modified), Pinyon Juniper Woodland has a low likelihood of being limiting 

to the associated species, based on vegetation quality and a high likelihood based on soil quality 

(table 19). The vegetation condition of this ERU is expected to maintain a low departure with a 

static trend relative to the desired condition. Fire return interval departure would remain low, but 

trending away from the desired conditions. Conditions may further improve by managing 

wildfires to meet resource objectives (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-Fire-G-2), an option that is not 

available within wildland-urban interface under alternative A.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 19 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Pinyon Juniper Woodland is 

classified as good with a static trend relative to desired conditions, the same as alternative A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

117

Increasing tree density and canopy cover is predicted to continue. This high tree density and 

cover would be expected to continue over extensive areas. This condition is appropriate for the 

ERU, and would support the historic fire regime of infrequent high-severity fires. There could be 

increased vulnerability to insect and disease outbreaks and continued shading of understory 

species at the landscape scale, although understory could be more abundant at finer scales. 

Soil condition and productivity would be fair under alternative B (modified) with a trend slowly 

toward desired conditions. This is because any activities that would occur in Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland would follow updated desired conditions and wildfires may be managed for resource 

objectives in more areas of the landscape than in alternative A. Consequently, soil productivity 

and function would improve, protective vegetative ground cover could increase, and soils could 

better withstand accelerated soil erosion in these treated areas. 

Under alternative B (modified), Pinyon Juniper Woodland has a low likelihood of being limiting 

to the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, 

and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

Management effect is a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B (modified) 

maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area, 

and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of Pinyon Juniper Woodland and 

the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Desired conditions in alternative B (modified) have greater potential to reduce ERU departure 

and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. Desired conditions promote: properly 

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

of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators) and 

disease with occasional outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies 

with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4). Desired conditions include a mosaic 

of vegetation conditions, densities, and structures and various scales that reflect natural 

disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptions to climate variability, connections 

based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERUAll-DC-1 to 4). A guideline for pinyon juniper addresses the management of large accumulations 

of green material (e.g., slash and wind-thrown trees) to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark 

beetle outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-3). 

Unlike alternative A, this alternative updates pinyon juniper management by identifying three 

ERUs in the pinyon juniper forest type: Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland. ERU-specific plan components provide more explicit 

information for managers. A one-size-fits-all approach for pinyon juniper would not be 

appropriate, because the pinyon juniper ERUs differ in terms of species composition, structure, 

and fire regime. 

Implementation of desired conditions would result in structure and species composition that both 

reflect and support natural disturbance regimes. A mix of trees and shrubs would occur as a series 

of vegetation states that shift from herbaceous dominated to shrub dominated to tree dominated. 

Even-aged patches of pinyons and junipers would form multi-aged woodlands (FW-TerrERU-PJ-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

118

DC-10). Alternative B (modified) describes the fire regime more accurately than alternative A: 

mixed to high severity (Fire Regime III, IV, and V) (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-13).

Plant composition would be similar to site potential at the landscape level, yet could vary 

considerably at the fine and mid-scale in response to differing seral stages. Ground cover would 

consist of shrubs, perennial grasses, and forbs, with some sites being capable of carrying surface 

fire (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-14). Mollisol soils would be managed toward grassland desired 

conditions, which would stay within the natural potential of the site and provide spatial 

heterogeneity and increased biodiversity within the ERU (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-1). 

Old-growth components and structure would occur throughout the landscape as individual 

components or as clumps. They would shift in time and space as a result of succession and tree 

growth and mortality. Habitat and food for wildlife and their prey would be provided by snags 

8 inches and greater at diameter at root collar that would average three snags per acre and by 

snags 18 inches and greater that would average one snag per acre (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-10, 11, 

12). These would be distributed throughout the landscape rather than mainly on slopes greater 

than 15 percent as in alternative A.

Coarse woody debris would average 2 to 5 tons per acre (FW-TerrERU-PJ-DC-12). Plan 

components promote the retention of slash piles across the landscape for several years instead of 

being immediately burned where coarse woody debris is deficient. This would provide cover for 

various species of wildlife; however, scenic integrity objectives, bark beetles, big game 

movements, and fire and fuel concerns would be factors when considering the number and 

distribution of slash piles or scattered slash to be retained (FW-TerrERU-PJ-G-4). Slash 

treatments would be used to improve herbaceous vegetation, watershed condition, and soil 

productivity in areas where there is little overstory; however, large accumulation of green 

material would be managed to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FWTerrERU-PJ-G-2, 3). Coarse woody debris provides microsites for establishment of native 

vegetation, provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife species, is critical for soil 

productivity and nutrient cycling, and important for soil condition and preventing accelerated soil 

erosion. 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2, FW-WUI-DC-4). 

Plan components direct managers to reduce fire hazard, intensity, and severity in order to protect 

human life and property (FW-WUI-DC-1, 2; FW-Fire-DC-1, 3). When wildland-urban interface

intersects with a mixed- or high-severity fire regime like Pinyon Juniper Woodland, characteristic 

ecosystem function would be modified to promote low-severity surface fires that rarely spread as 

crown fire; forests in the wildland-urban interface would be dominated by early seral, fireadapted species growing in a more open condition than the general forest; and wildland-urban 

interface may have a higher frequency of disturbance from prescribed burning, wildfires managed 

for resource objectives, and/or vegetative treatments than the natural disturbance regime (FWWUI-DC-3, 4, 7, 8). This proportion of the ERU would move away from desired conditions, and 

may result in a different species composition and structure than what Pinyon Juniper Woodland is 

adapted to. This departure could be mitigated by promoting wildland-urban interface conditions 

(fuel loading, basal area, logs, snags) at the lower end of the range given in the vegetation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

119

community desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-5, 9). This departure could be mitigated by spatially 

arranging these structural components to reduce fire hazard and increase suppression success, and 

allowing fuel loading or tree densities at the higher end of the range, where it provides for 

important fine-scale habitat structure or cover as long as it meets the overall intent of protecting 

wildland-urban interface values-at-risk (FW-WUI-DC-10; FW-WUI-G-1). 

In addition to the 5,200 acres of Pinyon Juniper Woodland in designated wilderness, there are 

1,467 acres in two recommended wildernesses: Strawberry Crater (605 acres) and Davey’s 

(863 acres). Together, this represents about 9 percent of the total ERU. Recommended wilderness 

would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited 

administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized 

uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. However, new 

trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that preserve 

wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses, 

which could be beneficial to associated species and could reduce the potential for invasive species 

establishment. If designated by Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to 

applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SAWild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 11). However, limited access associated with recommended (and 

designated) wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for 

treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would 

also influence which or whether restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of 

restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels 

of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or nonnative species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

This ERU occurs within 14 proposed management areas. Approximately 70 percent is within the 

Verde Valley (40 percent) and Anderson Mesa (30 percent) management areas. The area covered 

by the Verde Valley MA is different between alternatives. Under alternative B (modified), 

desired conditions in the Verde Valley MA would maintain or improve the sustainability of this 

ERU by managing watersheds to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic flooding and sedimentation, 

emphasizing resource protection in areas used for dispersed recreation, and preventing the 

introduction of diseases and invasive or undesirable species (MA-VerdeV-DC-1, 4; MA-VerdeVG-1, 2). 

A desired condition in the Anderson Mesa MA would minimize roads and trails (MA-AMesa-DC1). This could reduce soil or vegetation impacts from the use of roads and trails in localized areas.

There are 74 acres of Pinyon Juniper Woodland in the proposed West Clear Creek Research 

Natural Area, but the proposed RNA is in a different location than was proposed in alternative A. 

Under this alternative, the RNA would be encompassed by the West Clear Creek Wilderness.

Although guidance for proposed research natural areas would apply, such as preserving

ecological features and biodiversity values of the area (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1), providing a 

baseline for ecological changes (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-2), and allowing opportunities for study 

while not modifying the conditions of the area (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-4), wilderness direction 

would prevail. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

120

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except a total of 13 wildernesses 

are recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 5,200 acres of Pinyon Juniper Woodland in 

designated wilderness, there are 13,600 acres in recommended wilderness. The recommended 

wilderness acres are distributed among nine recommended wildernesses: Black Mountain (947

acres), Cedar Bench (1,053 acres), Cimarron-Boulder (3,432 acres), Davey’s (863 acres), 

Deadwood Draw (922 acres), East Clear Creek (487 acres), Hackberry (4,200 acres), Strawberry 

Crater (605 acres), Tin Can (427 acres), and Walker Mountain (665 acres). There would be about 

25 percent of the ERU in either designated or recommended wilderness. Recommended 

wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only 

for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 

5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. 

However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that 

preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses 

which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by Congress, the wilderness areas 

would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 11). However, limited access 

associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could preclude restoration treatments 

that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. 

Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether restoration treatments might 

be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return 

intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or 

establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward

desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in 

the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive 

or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), except alternative D 

contains no recommended wildernesses. In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of 

alternative B (modified) would be guided by applicable forestwide or management area plan 

direction rather than plan components relating to recommended wilderness. 

Aspen

Aspen occurs in Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire, and Spruce-Fir ERUs, and in other moist cool locations. Aspen provides habitat 

for wildlife as well as scenic beauty for humans, and is a vital part of several plant communities.

It is an early seral species with the ability to pioneer disturbances, but it is replaced later by 

slower growing tree species (Perala 2009). It is a shade-intolerant species that occurs as groups or 

clones. A single clone may cover a number of acres. Its distribution can vary in space and time 

and is influenced by soil type, soil moisture, low temperatures, and disturbances (primarily 

wildfires, but occasionally flooding) that stimulate root sprouting and colonization. Aspen sites 

may or may not have a significant conifer component, depending on successional status. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

121

Affected Environment 

Amount

Due to low commercial value and past fire suppression, the total number of acres covered and 

recruitment of new stands were thought to have been 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 caterpillars (Lynch et al. 2007, Fairweather et al. 2007). This reduced spatial 

coverage and numbers of plants on the forest. This was more pronounced on low-elevation dry 

sites than wetter high-elevation sites. Regeneration from sprouting is occurring following 

wildfires as is recruitment of aspen stems into taller size classes. The existing plan estimates 

4,487 acres on the forest (1987 Plan, page 142). The abundance of aspen is categorized as rare, 

because it occurs on less than 1 percent of the forest. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Widespread death of mature aspen trees, chronic browsing by ungulates (Fairweather et al. 2007), 

and advanced conifer reproduction could result in loss of vigor or further loss of aspen. The 

vegetation quality is classified as poor and trending away from desired conditions due to the 

widespread mortality. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 20 shows 

that the vegetation quality of aspen is classified as poor. This means it has a high departure from 

desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the 

landscape is greatly reduced. Aspen is trending away from reference conditions.

Soil quality is good in the four primary ERUs for which aspen is an early seral stage component. 

Table 20 shows that there is a high likelihood that aspen habitat could be limiting to the 

associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species was 

derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Table 20 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. 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

122

Table 20. Summary of coarse filter analysis for aspen

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D

Associated 

Species

Abundance Rare Rare Rare

QualityvegetationPoor, 

trending 

away

Poor, trending 

away

Poor, trending away Rusby’s milkvetch, 

evening grosbeak, 

Alberta arctic

Quality-soil Good, static Good, static: 

MCFF, MCIF, SF, 

and PP low 

objective

Good, slowly 

toward: PP high 

objective

Good, static: PP low 

objective

Good, toward: PP high 

objective toward.

Good, slowly toward: MCFF, 

MCIF

Good, static: SF

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve protection 

and management 

for some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Risk Factors

Primary threats to aspen are ungulate herbivory and fire exclusion. Monitoring of permanent plots 

in the Schultz Fire have shown that ungulate browse damage has likely contributed to the 

decrease in regeneration density (USDA Forest Service 2015a). 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 20. 

Environmental Consequences

Because aspen is an early seral species in four ERUs and not itself an ERU, additional 

environmental consequences for aspen can be found in the environmental consequences section 

for the applicable ERUs.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information.

All alternatives provide guidance for the management of aspen, which is an early seral species in 

Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire, and Spruce-Fir 

ERUs. The intent of the guidance for all alternatives is similar (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 144; FWTerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1 to 3; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). Aspen regeneration would be 

protected from herbivory by fencing, by modifying grazing capacity, and by piping water to areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

123

outside the stand. Stand diversity would provide suitable habitat for wildlife, while maintaining or 

enhancing firewood production, age class distribution, and sustained-yield of firewood. Snags 

greater than 12 inches d.b.h. and nest trees would be retained. Harvesting would generally occur 

from August 15 to May 15 to maximize sprouting. Roads, spur trails, landings, and fuel 

treatments would be located or implemented to have the least impact on the site (1987 Plan, pages 

142 to 144). Alternatives B (modified), C, and D also emphasize regeneration, protection from 

herbivory, and age class diversity. Although firewood is not explicitly mentioned in alternatives B 

(modified), C, or D, fuelwooding could be a tool to meet the objective to restore at least 

1,000 acres of aspen and maple during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FWTerrERU-AspMpl-O-1). 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 20 shows 

that under alternative A, the vegetation quality of aspen would be poor and trend toward desired 

conditions. This means that overall there is a high departure from desired conditions and the 

number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape would be reduced 

compared to desired conditions. 

Soil condition and productivity would continue to be in good condition with a static trend relative 

to desired conditions in Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, 

Spruce-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine under the low treatment objective. The trend would slowly move 

toward desired conditions under the high treatment objective in Ponderosa Pine because more 

acres are being treated. 

There is a high likelihood that aspen would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated 

species. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to 

respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences 

between alternatives.

The management effect for aspen is a 3 under alternative A, which means the plan components 

maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area. 

However, alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of aspen and the 

viability of the associated species than the other alternatives. 

Alternative A provides guidance for the management of aspen (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 144). The 

intent of the guidance is that aspen regeneration should be promoted, protected from excessive 

herbivory from livestock or wildlife; and a variety of tools can be used including clear cutting, 

prescribed fire, wildfire (except in the wildland-urban interface), and fuelwooding to manage 

aspen. Aspen that is treated and protected through fencing or other means would be maintained 

and expected to regenerate successfully. Aspen that is not treated and/or not protected would 

eventually decline due to excessive herbivory or being naturally shaded out by conifers. Some 

aspen stands have been subject to drought, insect defoliators, excessive browsing, and altered fire 

regimes that have exceeded the capacity of the root reserves to maintain stand vigor. Alternative A 

also has guidance to retain snags greater than 12 inches d.b.h. and nest trees and to follow the 

snag standards and guidelines in Management Area 3, Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer less 

than 40 percent slope (1987 Plan, page 131). Some plan components in alternative A support the 

maintenance and improvement of aspen through a regulated, sustained-yield approach to enhance 

firewood production and wildlife habitat, a conversion of 254 acres per decade from mixed 

conifer or pine to aspen (1987 Plan, pages 118, 130).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

124

Alternative A lacks plan components in Spruce-fir that would contribute to the maintenance or 

sustainability of aspen as it shifts in time and space. Spruce-fir occurs in the Kachina Peaks 

Wilderness and although wildfire would be allowed to play its natural role within the wilderness 

(1987 Plan, page 112), limitations in alternative A would limit the acreage of fires implemented in 

this ERU. Wildfires managed for resource objectives in wilderness are difficult to implement; 

however, they are not explicitly prohibited under alternative A. No wildfires have been managed 

to meet resource objectives in wilderness areas on the forest since the existing Plan was signed in 

1987. Therefore, few open areas that support aspen regeneration would be expected.

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in the ERUs that 

support aspen, but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the 

wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 density would be expected to increase in 

these areas, shading out aspen. There would also be increased potential for uncharacteristic fire in 

the wildland-urban interface and wilderness portions of this ERU, which could be beneficial for 

aspen. 

Although language in the 1987 Plan supports aspen, a portion of mixed conifer and ponderosa 

pine would be managed to maintain habitat for Mexican spotted owls, a species that requires cool 

microsites, late seral vegetation, and high canopy cover in much of its habitat. The portions of 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir in designated wilderness would be managed to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and the use of motorized or mechanized equipment is 

prohibited. No vegetative treatments or only light treatments would be expected in these areas 

resulting in late seral stages, higher canopy closure, and less favorable conditions for early seral 

species like aspen, and decreased likelihood of restoring the historic fire regime and vegetation 

structure depending on site-specific conditions. 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 20 shows 

that alternative B (modified) has the same vegetation quality as alternative A. Soil quality would 

be good and static for Spruce-Fir and Ponderosa Pine under the low treatment objective; good and 

toward desired conditions for Ponderosa Pine under the high treatment objective; and good and 

slowly toward desired conditions for both mixed conifer types. 

There would continue to be a high likelihood that aspen would be a limiting factor to the viability 

of the associated species. The management effect for alternative B (modified) is a 2, which means 

that plan components in alternative B (modified) maintain or improve protection and management 

for most habitat occurrences in the plan area. This alternative contributes more to the viability of 

the associated species than alternative A.

Outdated plan components for the ERUs that support aspen have been removed, and updated plan 

components better reflect current science. Alternative B (modified) emphasizes ecological 

conditions and composition, structure, and function of the ERUs using current science, in contrast 

to alternative A and emphasizes characteristic fire as a key disturbance mechanism that shapes the 

fire-adapted ERUs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

125

Alternative B (modified) removes the plan language limitations that restrict the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness, allowing wildfire to play its natural role 

in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative A, 

alternative B (modified) removes the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction and would help maintain openings, improve conditions for aspen, 

improve resilience, and reduce vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire in these areas. Motorized and 

mechanized use would still be prohibited as per wilderness law and policy. 

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) 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. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has desired conditions for Spruce-fir ERU that 

promote natural levels of disturbances, multiple species (including aspen), and a mosaic of seral 

stages from young to old (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1, 5, 6, and 8). This would promote regeneration 

of aspen. 

In contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) has desired conditions for two mixed conifer 

types recognizing that the natural disturbances and distribution of these types vary and result in 

distinct composition and structures. Plan components support fire regimes that would maintain 

and support aspen in Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire and allows for even-aged forest structure in 

small patches (often characteristic of aspen) (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-5). Plan objectives 

would enhance aspen regeneration through prescribed cutting in Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire 

over 2,900 to 15,000 acres during each 10-year period over the life of the plan and through 

prescribed fire (8,000 acres) and naturally ignited fires (at least 7,500 acres) within the natural 

fire regime during each 10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-O-1, 2, 

3). Plan components for Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire also promote natural disturbances and fire 

regimes that encourage the regeneration of aspen (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-4, 5). 

Desired conditions for aspen and maple would promote all age classes in groups or patches that 

shift across the landscape as a result of natural levels of disturbance and mechanical treatments 

and is reproducing successfully. A plan objective would restore 1,000 acres of aspen and maple 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan and where needed, regeneration and 

recruitment should be protected from excessive herbivory (FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1 through 

3, O-1, and G-1). 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

126

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Ponderosa Pine

Affected Environment 

Amount

Ponderosa Pine is the largest ERU on the forest, covering approximately 797,171 acres (or 

approximately 43 percent) of the forest. There are 860,099 acres of this ERU within the forest 

boundary and the Coconino NF manages about 93 percent (797,171 acres) of that, with the 

remaining 7 percent in mixed ownership (State, private, Navajo Army Depot, city, and county). 

Table 21 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Ponderosa Pine ERU 

would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance is categorized 

as Common because, at 797,171 acres, it occupies 43 percent of the forest. Habitats classified as 

Common generally cover more than 10 percent of the forest and are abundant and frequently 

encountered. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

According to reference conditions, Ponderosa Pine primarily occurred as open, all-aged forests, 

with a widespread herbaceous understory. In addition to the dominant overstory species 

(ponderosa pine), other trees include: Gambel oak; Douglas-fir; pinyon pine; Utah Rocky 

Mountain and alligator juniper; and aspen in small, localized areas. Snags (or dead standing trees) 

are also present. Understory vegetation includes a mixture of shrubs and grasses including: 

manzanita, Fendler’s ceanothus, Arizona fescue, mountain muhly, screw leaf muhly, and blue 

grama. In some areas, Ponderosa Pine occurs as savannah with extensive grasslands interspersed 

between widely spaced clumps or individual trees (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Its composition 

and structure was maintained by frequent, low-intensity fires and endemic levels of insects and 

disease. Ponderosa Pine is characterized by low-severity fire that occurs every 0 to 35 years. 

Early reports indicate that bark beetle activity was less frequent, extensive, and damaging in the 

Southwest than other western regions (USDA Forest Service 2009a). This includes periodic 

outbreaks, especially with droughts, or in the absence of controlling disturbance agents. There 

were widespread bark beetle outbreaks on the forest in the mid-1920s, late 1930s, mid-1960s, late 

1970s through the early 1980s, and late 1990s through the mid-2000s (Lynch et al. 2007). Dwarf 

mistletoe abundance is probably greater today than in the 1800s, mostly because there are more 

trees now. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 21

summarizes vegetation and soil quality. The vegetation quality of Ponderosa Pine is classified as 

poor, which means there is a high departure relative to reference conditions and that the number, 

size, and evenness of distribution of the habitat areas is greatly reduced. This ERU is trending 

away from reference conditions because canopy cover is higher, trees are denser and more 

continuous, fuel loads are higher, and there are more even-aged stands of trees because fire has 

been excluded. Consequently, Ponderosa Pine is generally less resilient to drought and less 

sustainable over time. Trees are under competitive stress and more susceptible to uncharacteristic 

wildfire, uncharacteristic insect and disease outbreaks, and invasive species. Understory 

abundance, distribution, and diversity is reduced because higher canopy cover levels reduce the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

127

amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and buildups of dense mats of pine needle litter 

suppress vegetation. 

Soil is considered in good condition with a static trend relative to reference conditions. In most 

areas, surface organic matter and litter are similar to reference conditions due to high amounts of 

protective litter cover protecting the soil from accelerated erosion. Nutrient cycling is nearly 

impaired where there is closed canopy (about 70 percent of the ERU). Closed canopy areas have 

reduced solar radiation and produce high amounts of litter or duff, which can prohibit 

germination and establishment of herbaceous vegetation that holds soil in place and carries fire. 

Areas with closed canopies and high densities of trees, however, do not affect the ability of the 

soil to produce tree biomass. There is a reduction in understory and forage and possibly coarsewoody material (greater than 3 inches diameter), but not enough to affect long-term soil 

productivity. 

Ponderosa Pine occurs in several soil types. Several of the plants associated with Ponderosa Pine 

are also specific to rocks and soil derived from dolomitic limestone (the endemic Flagstaff 

pennyroyal), basalt soils associated with the San Francisco Peaks volcanic field (Rusby’s 

milkvetch), and cinder soils associated in the Sunset Crater Volcanic Field (Sunset Crater 

beardtongue, Diamond Valley suncup, Serrate phacelia). Soil condition in these soil types are 

assumed to be the same as in the rest of the ERU.

Table 21 shows that there is a moderate likelihood that Ponderosa Pine habitat could be limiting 

to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species 

was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Table 21 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

About 31,087 acres (about 4 percent of the ERU) of Ponderosa Pine occur in nine designated 

wildernesses. These wildernesses are Fossil Springs Wilderness (4,589 acres, less than 1 percent 

of ERU), Kachina Peaks Wilderness (114 acres, less than 1 percent of ERU), Kendrick Mountain 

Wilderness (83 acres, less than 1 percent of ERU), Munds Mountain Wilderness (328 acres, less 

than 1 percent of ERU), Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness (12,341 acres, almost 2 percent 

of ERU), Strawberry Crater Wilderness (2,515 acres, less than 1 percent of ERU), Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness (5,580 acres, less than 1 percent of ERU), West Clear Creek Wilderness 

(5,479 acres, less than 1 percent of ERU), and Wet Beaver Wilderness (59 acres, less than 

1 percent of ERU). 

About 49 acres of Ponderosa Pine occur within the Red Mountain Geological Area and 

1,027 acres occur within the Oak Creek Research Natural Area. 

About 1,441 acres occur with three environmental study areas: Elden (488 acres), Griffith 

(298 acres), and Old Caves (655 acres). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

128

Table 21. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Ponderosa Pine ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Common Common Common Mexican spotted owl, bald 

QualityVegetationPoor, 

away 

Low objective: 

Poor at short term 

then Fair at long 

term/trending 

toward

High objective: 

Fair/trending 

toward 

Low objective: Poor at 

short term then Fair at 

long term/trending toward

High objective: 

Fair/trending toward 

eagle, northern goshawk, 

Allen’s lappet-browed bat, 

Navajo Mogollon vole, 

western red bat, Arizona 

phlox, Arizona 

sneezeweed, Flagstaff 

beardtongue, Flagstaff 

pennyroyal, hairy clematis 

Quality-Soil Good, 

static

Good, static (low 

treatment 

objective.

Good, toward 

desired conditions 

(high treatment 

objective)

Good, static (low 

treatment objective.

Good, toward desired 

conditions (high treatment 

objective)

(Arizona leatherflower), 

Mt. Dellenbaugh 

sandwort, Rusby's 

milkvetch, Sunset Crater 

beardtongue, golden 

eagle, southwestern 

myotis, black dropseed,

creeping milkvetch,

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate Low objective: 

Moderate at short 

term then LowModerate at long 

term 

High objective: 

Low-Moderate

Low objective: Moderate 

at short term then LowModerate at long term

High objective: LowModerate

Diamond Valley suncup, 

Flagstaff cinquefoil, 

James rubberweed, 

Jones' wild buckwheat, 

MacDougal’s aletes, Oak 

Creek triteleia, serrate 

phacelia, western 

mousetail

Management 

effect 

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve protection 

and management 

for some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Risk Factors

Primary threats to Ponderosa Pine ERU are: uncharacteristic wildfire; invasive, exotic species; 

and insects and disease.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 21. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis related to the risks arising from non-native invasive plant species are addressed under 

the Non-native or Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section.

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-Eco-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

129

DC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section for more information. 

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance and, once established, would compete with native 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, 2; FW-Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

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, 3). Implementation of this 

direction would avoid or limit ground-disturbing activities that could cause loss of protective 

vegetative ground cover. This direction would also avoid or limit detrimental impacts to soil 

condition and productivity, including to soils with high burn severity, 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. This would help 

maintain good soil condition in this ERU. 

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; 

SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management 

because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill 

or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can 

introduce non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively 

affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing 

activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which 

invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur depending on 

the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by 

reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. 

However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration 

treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or for safety or make them harder to 

do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, an 

unnatural increase in fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of 

invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase 

the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. 

Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, 

which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. Kendrick Mountain 

Wilderness is managed under the Kaibab National Forest Plan. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

130

All alternatives include the already designated Oak Creek Research Natural Area and the 

proposed Rocky Gulch Research Natural Area, which has 925 acres of Ponderosa Pine. All 

alternatives include guidance for management of research natural areas that would be beneficial 

for Ponderosa Pine by allowing natural processes and natural conditions to prevail. This guidance 

would minimize recreational impacts by restricting camping, prohibiting recreation fires, and 

limiting non-commercial group size (1987 Plan, page 196-1; SA-RNABotGeo-S-1; SARNABotGeo-G-6). In addition, access should be restricted as needed to maintain their natural, 

unmodified condition, and commercial tours would be prohibited except in support of approved 

research (1987 Plan, page 196-2; SA-RNABotGeo-S-2). This guidance would reduce the 

potential for human-caused fires and maintain the natural conditions for which the RNA was 

designated, which include properly functioning soils and vegetation. This guidance would also 

mitigate soil compaction, soil loss, and vegetation damage from some recreational activities. 

Designated wilderness direction would prevail in the Oak Creek RNA, which occurs in the Red 

Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 21 shows 

that under the low treatment level in alternative A, the vegetation quality of Ponderosa Pine 

would be poor and trend toward desired conditions, while under the high treatment level, the 

vegetation quality would improve to fair with a trend toward desired conditions. This means that 

under the low treatment level, Ponderosa Pine would have a high departure from desired 

conditions in the short term, and the number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas 

across the landscape would be reduced compared to desired conditions. However, this would 

improve to a moderate departure in the long term. Under the high treatment level, the vegetation 

quality of Ponderosa Pine would be fair in both the short and long term with a trend toward

desired conditions. This means that Ponderosa Pine would improve faster with more treatment 

and would have a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness 

of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape would be somewhat reduced compared to 

desired conditions.

Soil condition and productivity would continue to be in good condition with a static trend relative 

to desired conditions. The duff layer is sufficient to protect against accelerated soil erosion and 

loss of soil productivity. In treated or open areas, the nutrient cycling function, water infiltration, 

and herbaceous understory would improve. In untreated or high canopy closure areas, these 

factors would not improve. 

There is a low-moderate likelihood that Ponderosa Pine could be a limiting factor to the viability 

of the associated species under the high treatment level. Under the low treatment level, there is a 

moderate likelihood in the short term, improving to a low-moderate in the long term. This 

likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for 

vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.

The management effect for alternative A is a 3, which means that plan components in alternative 

A maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area.

This alternative contributes less to the viability of the associated species than the other 

alternatives. The plan components that contribute to this management effect are discussed below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

131

The 1987 Plan emphasizes timber production, other forest products, livestock grazing, recreation, 

and wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, pages 117 to 118). It does not emphasize restoration and lacks 

descriptions of structure, patterns, and function at various spatial scales. Alternative A describes 

two Ponderosa Pine subtypes: pure pine and pine with Gambel oak. It also recognizes aspen as 

distinct seral stage in some areas (1987 Plan, pages 116, 141). All of Ponderosa Pine is 

recognized as being part of a fire-dependent ecosystem. 

While Ponderosa Pine does not have specific treatment objectives under alternative A, it is 

expected that a substantial portion of the Ponderosa Pine ERU would receive treatment through 

the actions associated with an ongoing project, the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative. The 

treatments are the same as plan objectives for alternatives B (modified), C, and D (FW-TerrERUPP-O-1, 2, 3). The objectives are: 

• Use prescribed cutting to treat 50,000 to 260,500 acres of Ponderosa Pine during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan. 

• 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. 

• Use naturally ignited wildfires (i.e., lightning-caused fires that are managed for resource 

objectives) to treat 135,000 acres of Ponderosa Pine within the natural fire regime during 

each 10-year period over the life of the plan.

For the low treatment objective, open stands would represent about 28 percent of the ERU in the 

short term, 35 percent in the long term, and closed-canopy conditions would represent the 

majority of the ERU. For the high treatment objective, this would be about 40 percent of the ERU 

in the short term and 47 percent in the long term. The percent of open stands represents the sum 

of the following states: grass, forb, brush/shrub, open seedling and sapling, open medium trees, 

and open very large trees (both single and multistory). The amount of open canopy under the low 

treatment objective in the short term is not an improvement over existing conditions but 

conditions would improve in the long term. Conditions would improve under the high treatment 

objective as well in both the long and short term. The abundance, distribution, and vigor of 

understory vegetation would improve in open areas and would provide food and cover for a 

variety of wildlife species. Treatments would improve conditions for Gambel oak, which grow 

better in more open conditions, and aspen, an early seral species. Improved resilience to drought, 

insects and disease, and uncharacteristic disturbances are expected where more open stand 

conditions are created. 

Larger tree classes are projected to increase over existing conditions in the short and long term 

under both low and high treatment objectives. Progress toward uneven-aged conditions (multistoried states) is also projected to increase over existing conditions in the short and long term 

under both low and high treatment objectives. 

Management direction in alternative A is uneven, i.e., part of it is updated and better reflects 

current science and part of it is outdated. For example, some plan components promote 

management based on 10,000-acre (10K) blocks that were established across the forest in the 

1980s (1987 Plan, page 70) in which vegetation is managed to achieve various resource 

objectives such as snags, old growth, and wildlife cover (1987 Plan, pages 123, 124 to 127). 

Management using10K blocks assured that various habitat elements were distributed equitably 

across the landscape, but the 10K block concept is no longer used and has been replaced with 

analysis areas driven by other purposes. These purposes could include reducing fire risk around 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

132

specific communities, landscape-level restoration, or the need to improve management in specific 

watersheds. 

Additional direction for basal area and growing stock level density is provided for wildlife hiding 

and thermal cover required on 30 percent of each 10K block, but it is designed for even-aged 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer (1987 Plan, pages 124, 124-1, 125) rather than the unevenaged conditions promoted in desired conditions. 

The 1987 Plan provides direction in mixed conifer and pine-oak forests 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). 

This direction does not apply to pure pine. Uneven-aged management is emphasized and standard 

prescription guidelines are provided for ponderosa pine under various scenarios (1987 Plan, pages 

65-7, 65-10, 130 to 135). 

Portions of the 1987 Plan manage Gambel oak for firewood and wildlife habitat with detailed 

silvicultural prescriptions. The emphasis on firewood is not be beneficial for Gambel oak because 

the use of the forest has increased substantially since the plan was written, oak firewood is harder 

to find, and signs of fuelwood 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 (Unproductive timber land) and 7 (Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, less than 

40 percent slope) (1987 Plan, pages 147, 152). 

Under alternative A, ponderosa pine that is not classified as Mexican spotted owl habitat or 

wilderness is managed for northern goshawk habitat, which provides guidance for structural 

diversity. Plan direction emphasizes uneven-aged structure, retention of snags, and 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). Specific direction is provided in terms of canopy cover 

provided by different vegetation structural stages (VSS) (1987 Plan, pages 65-9 to 65-11). 

However, the forest no longer uses VSS. For the purposes of this forest plan analysis, VSS are 

represented by vegetation states. A crosswalk between VSS and vegetation states can be found in 

appendix C. 

Some of the plan language in alternative A would manage old growth as 100- to 300-acre stands 

over no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem management area (1987 Plan, pages 70-1, 

129). 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 alternative B 

(modified) to promote vertical structure and age class diversity; would tend to maintain a more 

continuous canopy than alternative B (modified) 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 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. The 1987 Plan also contains more updated plan language for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

133

old-growth. Alternative A would manage old growth in patterns that provide for a flow of 

functions and interactions at multiple scales through time across the landscape, and would 

allocate old growth as landscape percentages rather than specific acres, based on site capability, 

risks, and disturbance regime. A table that displayed the minimum criteria for structural attributes 

would be used for a forested site to be considered old growth (1987 Plan, pages 70-1, 70-2). 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Ponderosa Pine, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the landownership 

pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. This is a negative impact on the composition and 

age class distribution of Ponderosa Pine, which is a fire-dependent ecosystem.

About 13 percent of Ponderosa Pine occurs in designated wilderness and Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity centers (PACs). Ten percent of restricted Mexican spotted owl habitat would be 

managed for replacement nesting and roosting habitat in which the basal area threshold is set to a 

minimum 150 square feet per acre (1987 Plan, page 65-4), which is higher than the 110 square 

feet per acre minimum threshold identified under the current recovery plan (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2012b). 

Wilderness areas and PACs are managed for wilderness characteristics and Mexican spotted owl 

habitat and have different objectives and goals than areas outside of these areas. Management 

sideboards associated with these two categories would result in fewer or no treatments or more 

conservative silvicultural prescriptions than non-wilderness, non-PAC, and non-replacement 

nesting and roosting habitat areas. Light to no treatment may occur in Mexican spotted owl PACs 

under this alternative. The existing plan contains direction from the now-revised 1995 Mexican 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. This direction only allows treatments for fuelwood and fire risk 

abatement in PACs; only allows harvesting of conifers less than 9 inches d.b.h. in PACs selected 

for treatment; and allows treatments only outside of 100-acre no-treatment areas around known 

nest areas (1987 Plan, page 65-2). This outdated guidance does not reflect the 2012 revised 

recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b), and the 9-inch diameter cap may restrict 

treatment needed to meet the stated objective of fire risk abatement. 

As a result, no treatment areas, light treatment areas, and dense locations in designated wilderness 

areas would generally have a greater risk in the long term of uncharacteristic fire effects, higher 

than desired fire severity, and decreased likelihood of restoring the historic fire regime and 

vegetation structure, depending on site-specific conditions. There are about 31,087 acres of 

Ponderosa Pine in designated wilderness and 75,805 acres of PACs outside of designated 

wilderness in this ERU, for a total of 13 percent of the Ponderosa Pine ERU. These areas would 

not favor early seral species like aspen or the development of large oak, even though emphasis is 

placed on retaining relatively high densities and retaining and promoting large oaks (1987 Plan, 

pages 65 to 65-4). 

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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

134

during the 10 years following approval.” The motor vehicle use map is developed through a 

separate process established under the Travel Management Rule. Road decommissioning may be 

done in coordination with other management activities, such as the Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative (4FRI) (FW-RdsFac-O-1). 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 analysis also 

assumes that the average width of the footprint associated with a road identified for 

decommissioning would be 18 feet, which includes a 12-foot-wide road plus about 3 feet of 

drainage ditches or other disturbance on each side. Road decommissioning could be 

accomplished using a variety of techniques such as adding signs; placing boulders to obstruct 

access; ripping and re-contouring roadbeds; or re-establishing former drainage patterns, contours, 

slopes, and vegetation. A positive effect would be re-establishment of vegetation over a former 

roadbed. One mile of decommissioning equals 2.18 acres (5,280 feet in a mile multiplied by 

18 feet per 43,560 square feet in an acre). Therefore, this plan objective could result in a gain of 

between 436 to 1,744 acres of habitat during the 10 years following plan approval. 

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.

There are about 50 acres of Ponderosa Pine in the Red Mountain Geological Area. Plan 

components in alternative A are generally protective of the features and the composition, 

structure, and function of the different vegetation types within geological 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 geological area was established. 

Mechanized use in geological and 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 

this ERU.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

135

There are 1,441 acres of Ponderosa Pine in environmental study areas (Management Area 18). 

This is less than 1 percent of the ERU. Plan direction for these areas is generally protective and 

would maintain or improve the resilience of this ERU. Plan components would reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire, improve watershed health, restore bare soil areas, reduce soil compaction, 

close areas to motorized vehicles, and protect unique features using fencing or other means. 

These areas are not currently open to livestock grazing. Special-use authorizations (new or 

amendments) that would or could adversely affect the areas would not be allowed. See 1987 Plan, 

pages 197, 198, and 199. 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 21 shows 

that alternative B (modified) has the same vegetation and soil quality as alternative A; i.e., 

vegetation quality would be in poor condition in the short term, then would improve to fair 

condition with a trend toward desired conditions under the low treatment objective. Under the 

high treatment objective, vegetation quality would be in fair condition and trend toward desired 

conditions. Soil quality would be good with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

Consequently, there is a low-moderate likelihood that Ponderosa Pine could be a limiting factor 

to the viability of the associated species under the high treatment level. Under the low treatment 

level, there is a moderate likelihood in the short term improving to a low-moderate likelihood in 

the long term, also like alternative A. As described under alternative A, this is because the 

expected treatment levels in these two alternatives are the same. 

The big difference between these alternatives is plan components. Outdated plan components 

have been removed. Updated plan components better reflect current science. The management 

effect for alternative B (modified) is a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the 

plan area. This alternative contributes more to the viability of the associated species than 

alternative A. The plan components that contribute to this management effect are discussed 

below. 

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) and 

emphasizes characteristic fire as a key disturbance mechanism that shapes Ponderosa Pine (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-3, 6, 8, 9). 

Alternative B (modified) updates plan language for Ponderosa Pine, provides desired conditions 

that acknowledge the unique composition and fire regimes in Ponderosa Pine types, and provide 

managers with more specific guidance to manage these sub-types where needed. This would be 

particularly beneficial for the wildlife species that prefer one type over another. 

Vegetation structural stages are represented by seral states in alternative B (modified) (see 

Appendix C in Volume III of the FEIS) and vegetation structure is described at a variety of scales. 

For example, at the landscape scale, this alternative promotes a mosaic of age classes, variable 

structure (live and dead), and understory vegetation across the landscape that is resilient to 

disturbances and climate variability, and facilitates natural disturbances (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-1 

to 7). Desired conditions at the mid-scale account for variability across the landscape and 

describe characteristics of tree groups, openness, tree density, distribution of age classes, 

predominantly uneven-aged conditions, and conditions in northern goshawk habitat (FWTerrERU-PP-8 to 12). Fine scale desired conditions describe conditions within and between tree 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

136

groups and the value of witch’s brooms (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-13, 14, 15). Witch’s brooms are a 

deformity in a tree branch where a dense mass of shoots grow from a single point. This forms a 

broom or birds nest-like structure that is used by a variety of wildlife species for food or shelter. 

Witch’s brooms may be caused by dwarf mistletoe or other organisms. Guidelines provide 

sideboards that would promote or sustain old-growth forest attributes like large trees, old trees, 

snags, large logs, uneven-aged conditions, pre-settlement trees, and occupancy of small wildlife 

species, and would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-PP-G1 to 7). References to 100- to 300-acre stands for old-growth have been removed. Alternative B 

(modified) also removes language that requires the use of 10,000-acre blocks and vegetation 

structural stages for planning.

Plan language in alternative B (modified) promotes a variety of structural conditions across the 

landscape that reflect natural disturbance patterns that result in irregular tree groups and canopy 

gaps. However, this plan language allows for variability in group size and openness where needed 

for species-specific habitat requirements (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13). Similar 

language in alternative A was mainly associated with Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat 

(ponderosa pine Gambel oak), which, by definition, excluded pure pine. 

There is improved guidance for Gambel oak in this alternative, compared to alternative A. 

Desired conditions in Ponderosa Pine ERU emphasize Gambel oak as well distributed and 

provide for sustainability by promoting all sizes and ages of oak trees in natural patterns of 

abundance and density. Other desired conditions provide for medium and large oak snags as a 

well-distributed habitat component where they naturally occur (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5, 7). 

Moderate to large live oak trees with dead limbs, hollow boles, and cavities will provide shelter 

and habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Another beneficial guideline would manage for 

Gambel oak trees and snags to be sustained over time (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-4). The alternative A 

emphasis on Gambel oak as firewood or non-industrial wood has been removed.

Alternative B (modified) removes the plan language limitations that restrict the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness allowing wildfire to play its natural role 

in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative A, 

alternative B (modified) removes the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction and would help maintain openings, improve resilience, and reduce 

vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire in these areas. Motorized and mechanized use would still be 

prohibited as per wilderness law and policy. 

In addition to the 31,087 acres of designated wilderness, there are 97 acres of recommended 

wilderness: Abineau (68 acres of pine) and Strawberry Crater (29 acres of pine). Desired 

conditions emphasize undeveloped characteristics, ecological characteristics, native species, and 

little evidence of human presence or occupation, yet still allow for limited administrative use 

(SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, 5). This could improve soil condition due to limited human use and

reduce the effect of illegal fuelwooding due to reduced motorized access. However, it could 

increase the vulnerability of these areas to uncharacteristic fires in areas where thinning would be 

required prior to the use of fire. Due to the small area, recommended wilderness is likely to have 

little effect on the composition, structure, or function of Ponderosa Pine. 

About 50 acres of Ponderosa Pine occur within the Red Mountain Geological Area. Under 

alternative B (modified), mechanized travel is not suitable in geological areas except on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

137

designated trails (see Chapter 4 of the Revised Plan, 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 vegetation and soil because potential 

impacts would be limited to the trail prism. Damage to vegetation and accelerated erosion would 

be evaluated during the environmental analysis. 

About 1,441 acres of Ponderosa Pine occur within three environmental study areas: Elden 

(488 acres), Griffith (298 acres), and Old Caves (655 acres). The plan direction for these areas is 

generally protective. For example, management activities and new special uses (and amendments) 

would be designed to retain and promote the character of these areas and to promote educational 

opportunities (MA-FlagN-G-1; MA-MtElden-G-4, 5). New transmission corridors would avoid 

environmental study areas to protect the settings and educational resources (MA-FlagN-G-2; 

MA-MtElden-G-6) and educational opportunities would be consistent with resource desired 

conditions, as well (MA-FlagN-DC-7; MA-MtElden-DC-7). This management direction would 

not affect the overall quality of this ERU because the percentage of the ERU that overlaps the 

environmental study area is less than 1 percent.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except 13 wildernesses are 

recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 31,087 acres of Ponderosa Pine in designated 

wilderness, there are 4,462 acres in recommended wilderness (less than 1 percent of the ERU). 

The recommended wilderness acres are distributed among seven recommended wildernesses: 

Abineau (68 acres), Strawberry Crater (29 acres), Barbershop (849 acres), Deadwood Draw 

(245 acres), East Clear Creek (1,240 acres), Railroad Draw (1,205 acres), and Tin Can (826 

acres). There would be about 4 percent of the ERU in either designated or recommended 

wilderness. Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting 

motorized vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 

2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness 

values would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and nonmechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). 

Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from 

motorized or mechanized uses, which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by 

Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 

Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 

11). However, limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or 

make them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or 

whether restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments 

could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased 

density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This 

could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in 

localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the 

spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, 

fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative D

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

wilderness areas. In alternative D, the recommended wilderness areas of alternative B (modified) 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

138

would be guided by applicable forestwide or management area plan direction rather than plan 

components relating to recommended wilderness. 

Mixed Conifer All

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

Affected Environment 

Amount 

On the Coconino NF, 49,826 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU are within the 

administrative boundary of the Coconino NF. The forest manages 49,595 acres, which is nearly 

98 percent of the ERU. The remaining acres are in private ownership. 

Table 22 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire ERU would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as Occasional because, at 49,595 acres, it occupies about 2.7 percent of 

the forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and are 

occasionally encountered.

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU primarily occurs on mountain slopes, canyons, and northfacing slopes. It occupies the warmer and drier sites of the mixed conifer life zone and is 

characterized by a relatively open structure and a historic fire regime of frequent, low-severity 

fires and infrequent, mixed-severity fires. These conifer forests are dominated by mainly shadeintolerant trees such as: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, limber pine, and Gambel oak, 

with a lesser presence of New Mexican locust. Shade-tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and 

white fir tend to increase when lack of fire or other disturbances facilitate development in older 

stages of succession. Aspen may occur as small groups in north-facing slopes, drainages, and 

other microsites where cooler, moister conditions prevail. Maple species may be found in swales 

and canyons. This ERU typically occurs with an understory of graminoids, forbs, and shrubs. The 

understory is similar to Ponderosa Pine ERU, but it generally occurs in cooler, moister, and often 

higher sites and has more sedges, mosses, and liverworts. Primary natural disturbances in this 

ERU are wildfire and endemic levels of insects and disease.

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is thought to be currently more widespread and continuous in

distribution than under reference conditions because of fire exclusion and the greater amount of 

dense multi-layered stands. The abundance of southwestern dwarf mistletoe is also likely higher 

(USDA Forest Service 2016c). Compared to reference conditions, current levels of insects and 

disease are outside the historic range of variability. The possible introduction of white pine blister 

rust, which was recently discovered for the first time in eastern Arizona, could further elevate 

mortality levels. White pine blister rust is one of the most damaging tree diseases in North 

America, affecting trees of all sizes, but has not been detected yet on the Coconino NF. Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire has few weed species (USDA Forest Service 2009a).

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 22 shows 

that vegetation is classified in fair condition and trending away from reference conditions due to a 

lack of fire. This means that there is a moderate departure relative to reference conditions and that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

139

the number, size, and evenness of distribution of the habitat areas is somewhat reduced. As a 

result of fire exclusion, shade-tolerant species, such as white fir, are increasing in the understory. 

Tree density is high in most places and conditions for early succession species like aspen are not 

being maintained or created. Aspen populations are declining in this ERU because of insect 

defoliators, drought, fire exclusion, and heavy ungulate browsing. 

Soil is considered in good condition with a static trend relative to reference conditions. In most 

areas, surface organic matter and litter are similar to reference conditions due to high amounts of 

protective litter cover protecting the soil from accelerated erosion. The majority of soils are in 

satisfactory condition. Rusby’s milkvetch is associated with Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

where it overlaps the basalt soils associated with the volcanic field created by the eruption of the 

San Francisco Peaks on the north and west side of the San Francisco Peaks. Soil condition in this

soil type is assumed to be the same as in the rest of the ERU.

Table 22 shows that there is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire habitat 

could be limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the 

associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for 

vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.

Table 22 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

About 778 acres (almost 2 percent of the ERU) of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire occur in two 

designated wildernesses: Red Rock-Secret Mountain (598 acres) and Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness (180 acres).

About 299 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire occur in the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area. 

The Mogollon Rim Botanical Area preserves a representative portion of a white fir/bigtooth 

maple community. This community represents a unique vegetation community in Arizona and is 

found only at a few locations along the Mogollon Rim. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

140

Table 22. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), 

C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Mexican spotted owl, 

QualityVegetationFair, 

trending 

away

Fair, trending 

toward short 

term then static 

trend long term 

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

northern goshawk, 

Allen’s lappet-browed 

bat, Navajo Mogollon 

vole, western red bat, 

Rusby’s milkvetch, 

evening grosbeak, 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, trending 

slowly toward

Low objective: Good, 

trending slowly toward

High objective: Good, 

trending slowly toward

golden-crowned 

kinglet, MacGillivray’s 

warbler, three-toed 

woodpecker

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate Moderate Low objective: Moderate 

High objective: Low

Management 

effect 

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area.

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.

Risk Factors

The primary threat to Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire is fire exclusion. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 22. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics 

section above for more information. 

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SAWild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management because 

motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill or 

damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can introduce 

non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively affect the 

reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing activities are 

primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species 

introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur, depending on the level of use. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

141

The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited 

access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of 

restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels 

of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or nonnative species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. This would have a small effect to Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire due to the small proportion of the ERU in wilderness. 

All alternatives provide guidance for the management of aspen, which is an early successional 

species in this ERU (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 144; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC 1 to 3; FWTerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). The guidance would enhance or maintain aspen through plan objectives 

and protect aspen regeneration from livestock grazing or wildlife where necessary through 

fencing or other means. All alternatives would retain snags greater than 12 inches d.b.h. to 

provide nesting and feeding habitat for wildlife. See 1987 Plan, pages 130, 131, 142; and FWTerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1, 3; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-O-1, FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-G-1. Once snags 

fall, the resulting downed logs would provide important contributions to nutrient cycling, soil 

productivity, and cover and microsites for various species, including young mixed conifer tree 

species.

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 22 shows 

that under alternative A, the vegetation quality of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire is classified 

as fair, which means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size, 

and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is somewhat reduced. It would 

be trending toward desired conditions in the short term, but the trend would become static in the 

long term. 

Soil condition and productivity would continue to be in good condition with a static trend relative 

to desired conditions. The duff layer is sufficient to protect against accelerated soil erosion and 

loss of soil productivity. 

There is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire could be a limiting factor to 

the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for 

habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of 

soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect for alternative A is a 3, which means that plan components in alternative 

A maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area.

This alternative contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of the habitat and to the 

viability of the associated species than the other alternatives. The plan components that contribute 

to this management effect are discussed below. 

The majority of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire is within three management areas under the 

1987 Plan; most (89 percent) occurs in Management Area 3- Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer 

less than 40 percent slope, Management Area 4- Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer greater than 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

142

40 percent slope, and Management Area 19- Mogollon Rim. The 1987 Forest Plan provides little 

direction on desired conditions for this ERU, as it is lumped into the broad vegetation category of 

Mixed Conifer, which is combined with ponderosa pine on slopes less than 40 percent or on 

slopes greater than 40 percent. There is vague direction with regard to the mixed conifer category 

as a whole, and it is particularly ambiguous with respect to how structure, patterns, and function 

vary at different spatial scales (1987 Plan, pages 117, 125, 133, 138). 

Management direction in alternative A is uneven, i.e., part of it is updated and better reflects 

current science and part of it is outdated. For example, some plan components promote 

management based on 10,000-acre (10K) blocks that were established across the forest in the 

1980s (1987 Plan, page 70) in which vegetation is managed to achieve various resource 

objectives such as snags, old growth, and wildlife cover (1987 Plan, pages 123, 124 to 127). 

Management using10K blocks assured that various habitat elements were distributed equitably 

across the landscape, but the 10K block concept is no longer used and has been replaced with 

analysis areas driven by other purposes. These purposes could include reducing fire risk around 

specific communities, landscape-level restoration, or the need to improve management in specific 

watersheds. 

Some of the plan language in alternative A would manage old growth as 100- to 300-acre stands 

over no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem management area (1987 Plan, pages 70-1, 

129). 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 alternative B 

(modified) to promote vertical structure and age class diversity; would tend to maintain a more 

continuous canopy than B (modified) 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 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. The 1987 Plan also contains more updated plan language for old growth. Alternative 

A would manage old growth in patterns that provide for a flow of functions and interactions at 

multiple scales through time across the landscape, and would allocate old growth as landscape 

percentages rather than specific acres, based on site capability, risks, and disturbance regime. A 

table that displayed the minimum criteria for structural attributes would be used for a forested site 

to be considered old growth (1987 Plan, pages 70-1, 70-2). 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire, but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the 

wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly problematic where the 

landownership pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. This is a negative impact on the 

composition and age class distribution of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, which is a 

fire-dependent ecosystem.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

143

The expected treatment levels are the same as the low level of treatment in alternative B 

(modified). They are:

• Use prescribed cutting to treat 2,900 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire during 

each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

• Use prescribed fire on at least 8,000 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire within the 

natural fire regime during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

• Use naturally ignited wildfires (i.e., lightning-caused fires managed for resource 

objectives) to treat at least 7,500 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire within the 

natural fire regime, during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

As more Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire is made of uneven-aged states, it would become more 

structurally diverse. The amount of open canopy in the ERU would be expected to increase in the 

long term, resulting in increased abundance and diversity of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Tree 

density would be expected to decrease in the areas where it exceeds desired conditions. However, 

the treatment levels in alternative A are too low to offset excess regeneration, and small tree 

growth and canopy cover would remain predominantly closed across the landscape, which would 

suppress tree growth. 

Within this ERU, in areas where higher tree density is maintained, such as within MSO protected 

activity centers (about 7,621 acres in this ERU), or on steep slopes, the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire is still higher than elsewhere. Early seral species, such as aspen, may continue to decline 

where late seral species or closed canopy conditions are emphasized. Outside of these areas, the 

ERU would generally be managed as MSO restricted habitat with an emphasis on large trees, 

large hardwoods, large snags, and large downed woody debris (1987 Plan, pages 65 to 65-6, 65-9 

to 65-11). Restricted habitat is an outdated term and is no longer used. 

Currently, under alternative A, language from an earlier version of the Recovery Plan is 

incorporated into the 1987 Plan. This plan direction conflicts with the most current recovery plan 

recommendations, does not reflect current science, and could be in conflict with future recovery 

plan revisions. As a result of this plan direction, light to no treatment may occur in Mexican 

spotted owl PACs under this alternative. The existing plan contains direction from the nowrevised 1995 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. This direction only allows treatments for 

fuelwood and fire risk abatement in PACs; only allows harvesting of conifers less than 9 inches 

d.b.h. in PACs selected for treatment; and only allows treatments outside of 100-acre no treatment 

areas around known nest areas (1987 Plan, page 65-2). This outdated guidance does not reflect 

the 2012 revised recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b) and the 9-inch diameter 

cap may restrict treatment needed to meet the stated objective of fire risk abatement.

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire occurs within the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area. 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; 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

144

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 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 this ERU.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 22 shows 

that under the low treatment objective, vegetation quality in alternative B (modified) would be in 

fair condition (a moderate departure from desired conditions). Under the high treatment objective, 

vegetation quality would be in good condition. The trend under both objectives would be toward 

desired conditions in the short term and static relative to desired conditions in the long term. Soil 

quality would be good with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

Under the low treatment objective, there is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire could be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. Under the high 

treatment objective, the likelihood would be low that this ERU would be limiting to the viability 

of the associated species. These likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances and 

thus would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect would be a 2, which means that plan components in alternative B 

(modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the 

plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Desired conditions in the proposed revised plan have greater potential to reduce ERU departure 

and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. Desired conditions promote: properly 

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

of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators) and 

disease with occasional outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies 

with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4). Desired conditions include a 

mosaic of vegetation conditions, densities, and structures, and various scales that reflect natural 

disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptions to climate variability, connections 

based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERUAll-DC-1 to 4). 

Alternative B (modified) clearly distinguishes between different Mixed Conifer types on the 

forest and provides desired conditions, objectives, and guidance that are specific to each type.

Alternative B (modified) promotes characteristic disturbances as mechanisms that shape mixed 

conifer (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-4, 5, 7, 8). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

145

The outdated vegetation structural stages concept in alternative A is represented by seral states in 

alternative B (modified) (see Appendix C in Volume III of the FEIS) and vegetation structure is 

described at a variety of scales. For example, at the landscape scale, this alternative promotes a 

mosaic of age classes, variable structure (live and dead), and understory vegetation across the 

landscape that is resilient to disturbances and climate variability and facilitates natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1, 2; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1 to 5). Desired 

conditions at the mid-scale account for variability across the landscape and describe 

characteristics of tree groups, openness, tree density, distribution of age classes, predominantly 

uneven-aged conditions, and conditions in northern goshawk habitat (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-6 

to 9). Fine scale desired conditions describe conditions within and between tree groups and the 

value of witch’s brooms (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-10, 11, 12). Witch’s brooms are a 

deformity in a tree branch where a dense mass of shoots grow from a single point. This forms a 

broom or birds nest-like structure that is used by a variety of wildlife species for food or shelter. 

Witch’s brooms may be caused by dwarf mistletoe or other organisms. Guidelines provide 

sideboards that would promote or sustain old-growth forest attributes like large trees, old trees, 

snags, large logs, and occupancy of small wildlife species, and would reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-G-1, 2, 3). References to 100- to 

300-acre stands for old growth have been removed. Alternative B (modified) also removes 

language that requires the use of 10,000-acre blocks and vegetation structural stages for planning.

Alternative B (modified) removes the plan language limitations that restrict the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness allowing wildfire to play its natural role 

in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative A, 

alternative B (modified) removes the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction, and would help maintain openings, improve resilience, and reduce 

vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire in these areas.

About 79 percent of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire occurs in the C.C. Cragin Watersheds and 

East Clear Creek Management Areas. The C.C. Cragin Watersheds Management Area is 

characterized by the C.C. Cragin Reservoir, which supplies water to the Town of Payson and by 

Forest Road 300 along the Mogollon Rim. The East Clear Creek Management Area is remote and 

characterized by East Clear Creek and Leonard Canyon drainages and their tributaries. Desired 

conditions envision a low risk of substantial damage from uncharacteristic fire and recreation and 

more primitive non-motorized recreation in canyons (MA-CCCrg-DC-1, 2; MA-EastClr-DC-1, 

2). Guidelines require the C. C. Cragin Watersheds Management Area be managed to reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic disturbances such as wildfires, flooding, and sedimentation, and require 

that roads and trails in the management area be maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation 

(MA-CCCrg-G-1, 2). Implementation of these components would contribute to and improve 

vegetation and soil quality and contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of this ERU. 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire also occurs in the Pine Belt, San Francisco Peaks, and Long 

Valley Management Areas. Plan language for the Pine Belt Management Area does not focus on 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire or terrestrial ERUs. Plan language for the San Francisco Peaks 

Management Area does not focus on Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, but rather broadly 

addresses recreation, the cultural significance of the San Francisco Peaks, and limitations on 

horse and pack stock and recreational livestock in higher elevations, which do not impact this 

ERU. Most of the direction in the Long Valley Management Area focuses on recreation 

opportunities and riparian habitat, except one desired condition promotes more primitive non-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

146

motorized recreation along ridges and canyons. This would lower the potential for recreational 

disturbance in this management area (MA-LongV-DC-5). 

There are no acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU in recommended wilderness. 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire occurs within the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area. Plan language 

in alternative B (modified) promotes protection and maintenance of the unique characteristics of 

botanical areas and sustainability of their inherent physical and biological processes that are not 

negatively impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5, SARNABotGeo-G-1, 5). Fires and allotment management plans would be protective of the resources 

for which these areas were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). In contrast to alternative A, 

mechanized travel is not suitable in botanical areas, except on designated trails (see Chapter 4 of 

the Revised Plan, 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 vegetation and soil because potential impacts would be limited to 

the trail prism. Damage to vegetation and accelerated erosion would be evaluated during the 

environmental analysis.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except 13 wildernesses are 

recommended instead of 3. In addition to the 778 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire in 

designated wilderness, there are 283 acres in the Barbershop Canyon recommended wilderness. 

There would be 2 percent of the ERU in either designated or recommended wilderness. 

Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized 

vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5; SARWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values 

would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and nonmechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6, SA-RWild-G-5). 

Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from 

motorized or mechanized uses, which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by 

Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 

Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 

11). However, limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or 

make them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or 

whether restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments 

could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased 

density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This 

could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in 

localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the 

spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, 

fire regime, and biodiversity. This would have little effect to Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

because of the small proportion of the ERU affected.

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

147

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire

Affected Environment 

Amount

On the Coconino NF, 38,321 acres of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU are within the 

administrative boundary of the Coconino NF. The forest manages 37,143 (97 percent) of those 

acres, which represents about 97 percent of the ERU. The remaining acres of Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire are in private or State ownership. 

Table 23 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as Occasional because, at 38,321 acres, it occupies about 2 percent of 

the forest. Habitats classified as Occasional generally cover 1 to 10 percent of the forest and are 

occasionally encountered. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU occurs on mountain slopes such as the San Francisco 

Peaks and may also occur in canyons and north-facing slopes such as on Hutch Mountain and 

Mormon Mountain. Dominant and codominant species include Douglas-fir, southwestern white 

pine, and limber pine, and late seral species such as maple, white fir, and blue spruce. The diverse 

understory consists of native herbaceous and shrub species and it generally has more forbs, 

sedges, mosses, and liverworts than Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and more leaf litter 

because there are more deciduous species. Disturbances typically occur at two temporal and 

spatial scales: large-scale infrequent disturbances (mostly mixed-severity fires at 35- to 200-year 

intervals) and small-scale, frequent disturbances (e.g., fire, insect, disease, wind). 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 23 shows 

that the vegetation quality of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire is fair, i.e., moderately departed, 

in the short term and trending away from reference conditions. In the long term, vegetation 

quality would degrade to poor, i.e., highly departed from reference conditions, and trend away 

from reference conditions. 

There is a high proportion of dense, closed canopy conditions and much of the ERU is in a late 

successional state due to fire exclusion. This is a higher proportion than in reference conditions. 

As a result, shade-tolerant species, such as white fir, are increasing and early successional, more 

fire-tolerant species like aspen are decreasing. Aspen populations are declining in this ERU 

because of insect defoliators, drought, fire exclusion, and heavy ungulate browsing. The current 

fire frequency is far outside the historic range of variability. 

The risk of uncharacteristically large and severe fires is higher than reference conditions. 

Mortality due to insects and disease is likely to continue. There was an increase in mortality of 

subalpine/corkbark fir from western balsam bark beetle in 2013, compared to 2012, increasing the 

extent of the area with standing dead and downed trees (USDA Forest Service 2015a). White pine 

blister rust is also a potential threat. It is known from eastern Arizona, but has not been detected 

here yet. It is one of the most damaging tree diseases and affects white pines of all size classes. 

Soil is in good condition and has a static trend relative to reference conditions. In most areas, 

surface organic matter and litter are similar to reference conditions due to high amounts of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

148

protective litter cover protecting the soil from accelerated erosion. The majority of soils are in 

satisfactory condition. 

Table 23 shows that there is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 

habitat could be limiting to the associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to 

the associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value 

for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives.

Table 23 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

About 8,193 acres (22 percent of the ERU) occur within designated wilderness. Of this, 

6,052 acres (16 percent) lie within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness and 2,141 acres (6 percent) lie 

within the Kendrick Mountain Wilderness. The Kachina Peaks Wilderness is managed by 

Coconino National Forest. Kendrick Mountain Wilderness is managed by the adjacent Kaibab 

National Forest. 

Table 23. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Occasional Occasional Mexican spotted owl, 

QualityVegetationFair, trending 

away

Fair, trending 

away from 

desired 

conditions then 

poor with a trend 

away from 

desired 

conditions

Fair, static northern goshawk, 

Allen’s lappet-browed 

bat, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, evening 

grosbeak, goldencrowned kinglet, 

MacGillivray’s 

warbler, Swainson’s 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, static Good, trending slowly 

toward

thrush, three-toedwoodpecker, Alberta 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate Moderate, then 

High

Moderate arctic, Colorado blue 

columbine, Hall’s 

milkweed

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area.

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

149

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors are uncharacteristic fire and fire exclusion. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 23. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112, SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SAWild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management because 

motorized use and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill or 

damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can introduce 

non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively affect the 

reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing activities are 

primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species 

introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur, depending on the level of use. 

The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited 

access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of 

restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels 

of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or nonnative species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

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-GrazMgtApp: FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2; FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). 

A management approach in Invasive Species of alternatives B (modified), C, and D reminds 

managers to prioritize areas such as wilderness areas, research natural areas, botanical areas, wild 

and scenic river areas, and riparian areas for invasive species control to maintain and restore the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

150

integrity of native species and ecosystems. Additional information and analysis is discussed under 

the Non-native of Invasive Species topic in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. 

All alternatives provide guidance for the management of aspen, which is an early successional 

species in this ERU (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 144; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1 to 3; FWTerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). The guidance would enhance or maintain aspen through plan objectives 

and protect aspen regeneration from livestock grazing or wildlife where necessary through 

fencing or other means. All alternatives would retain snags greater than 12 inches d.b.h. to 

provide nesting and feeding habitat for wildlife. See 1987 Plan, pages 130, 131, 142; FWTerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1, 3. Once snags fall, the resulting downed logs would provide important 

contributions to nutrient cycling, soil productivity, and cover and microsites for various species, 

including young mixed conifer tree species. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 23 shows 

that under alternative A the vegetation quality of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would 

initially be classified as fair, which means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions 

and the number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is 

somewhat reduced. In the long term vegetation quality would trend away from desired conditions 

and eventually transition to poor condition, which means it would have a high departure and the 

number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape would be greatly 

reduced, compared to desired conditions. There would be a continued trend away from desired 

conditions. Under alternative A, management of this ERU is not expected to change over current 

levels, leading to a continued loss in age class diversity, increased canopy cover, loss of early 

successional species, and a reduction in herbaceous understory. 

Fire return interval is expected to remain moderately departed and begin to trend away from the 

desired conditions due to a lack of fire treatment (prescribed and wildfires managed for resource 

objectives) objectives or anticipated fire treatments. While the ERU is adapted to mixed-severity 

fires, the existing composition and structure puts it at greater risk of severe fires over an 

uncharacteristically large extent that would be the case under conditions when the fire return 

interval was at a low departure. Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to 

desired conditions.

Initially, there would be a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would be 

a limiting factor to the viability of associated species, but this would transition to a high 

likelihood as vegetative conditions in the ERU became poor. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation 

quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil 

to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3. This means plan components maintain or improve protection and 

management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A contributes less to the 

maintenance and sustainability of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and the viability of the 

associated species than the other alternatives.

The majority of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire is within four management areas under the 

1987 Plan. Most of this ERU (85 percent) occurs in Management Area 3- Ponderosa Pine and 

Mixed Conifer less than 40 percent slope, Management Area 36-Schultz, Management Area 1-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

151

Wilderness, and Management Area 4- Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer greater than 40 percent 

slope. The 1987 Forest Plan provides little direction on desired conditions for this ERU, as it is 

lumped into the broad vegetation category of Mixed Conifer, which is combined with ponderosa 

pine on slopes less than 40 percent or on slopes greater than 40 percent. There is vague direction 

with regard to the mixed conifer category as a whole and is particularly ambiguous with respect 

to how structure, patterns, and function vary at different spatial scales (1987 Plan, pages 117, 125, 

133, 138). Wilderness area direction is evaluated under All Alternatives above. Plan components 

in the Schultz Management Area promote the re-introduction of fire’s natural role as much as 

possible, the balance of recreation demands with soil and vegetation protection, the maintenance 

of large tracts of unfragmented habitat for disturbance sensitive species, and the reduced potential 

for catastrophic fire (1987 Plan, pages 206-103, 105). Implementation of these plan components 

would reduce the threats to and contribute to the sustainability of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire in the Schultz Management Area.

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Mixed Conifer 

Infrequent Fire, but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in 

the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. 

Management direction in alternative A is uneven, i.e., part of it is updated and better reflects 

current science and part of it is outdated. For example, some plan components promote 

management based on 10,000-acre (10K) blocks that were established across the forest in the 

1980s (1987 Plan, page 70) in which vegetation is managed to achieve various resource 

objectives such as snags, old growth, and wildlife cover (1987 Plan, pages 123, 124 to 127). 

Management using10K blocks assured that various habitat elements were distributed equitably 

across the landscape, but the 10K block concept is no longer used and has been replaced with 

analysis areas driven by other purposes. These purposes could include reducing fire risk around 

specific communities, landscape-level restoration, or the need to improve management in specific 

watersheds. 

Alternative A contains language that 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). This 

structure and age class diversity reflects the characteristics that would be expected in infrequent 

fire ecosystems like Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU. Other plan language would have 

allocations consisting of landscape percentages meeting old-growth conditions and not specific 

acres and managing old-growth in patterns that provide for a flow of functions and interactions at 

multiple scales over time (1987 Plan, page 70-1). Though not specifically acknowledging 

structure and spatial patterns that reflect different fire regimes, this plan language has the 

flexibility to allow managers to allocate in an ecologically sound manner. 

There are a little over 13,000 acres of Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers in Mixed 

Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU. Alternative A contains plan components from an outdated 

version of the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. These plan components only allow trees 

smaller than 9 inches d.b.h. to be removed from protected activity centers and from steep slopes 

(mixed conifer and pine-oak forests outside protected activity centers with slopes greater than 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

152

40 percent that have not been logged within the past 20 years) only to abate fire risk (1987 Plan, 

pages 65-2, 65-3). Besides not reflecting the most current science for this threatened species, this 

plan language does not allow treatments that could restore owl habitat nor is a 9-inch diameter 

limit sufficient to abate fire risk in most cases.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 23 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 

would be fair with a static trend relative to desired conditions. This means it has a moderate 

departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat 

areas across the landscape is somewhat reduced. Under alternative B (modified), few treatments 

are anticipated because management of this ERU is not expected to change over current levels, 

leading to a continued loss in age class diversity, increased canopy cover, loss of early 

successional species, and a reduction in herbaceous understory. 

The fire return interval is expected to remain moderately departed and begin trending away from 

the desired conditions. As in alternative A, while the ERU is adapted to mixed-severity fires, the 

existing composition and structure puts it at greater risk of severe fires over an 

uncharacteristically larger extent than would be the case under conditions when the fire return 

interval was at a low departure. Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to 

desired conditions.

There would be a moderate likelihood that Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would be a 

limiting factor to the viability of associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining 

the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used 

instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect for alternative B (modified) is a 2, which indicates plan components 

under this alternative maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat 

occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Desired conditions in alternative B (modified) have greater potential to reduce ERU departure 

and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. Desired conditions promote: properly 

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

of uncharacteristic disturbances; endemic levels of invertebrates (including pollinators) and 

disease with occasional outbreaks; and a balance of desirable non-native species and subspecies 

with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3, 4). Desired conditions include a 

mosaic of vegetation conditions, densities and structures and various scales that reflect natural 

disturbance regimes, resilience to disturbances, adaptions to climate variability, connections 

based on natural patterns, and allowances for inclusions, variability, and ecotones (FW-TerrERUAll-DC-1 to 4). 

Alternative B (modified) clearly distinguishes between different Mixed Conifer types on the 

forest and provides desired conditions, objectives, and guidance that are specific to each type. 

Alternative B (modified) promotes characteristic disturbances as mechanisms that shape mixed 

conifer (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

153

The outdated vegetation structural stages concept in alternative A is represented by seral states in 

alternative B (modified) (see Appendix C in Volume III of the FEIS) and vegetation structure is 

described at a variety of scales. For example, at the landscape scale, this alternative promotes a

mosaic of age classes, variable structure (live and dead), and understory vegetation across the 

landscape that is resilient to disturbances and climate variability, and facilitates natural 

disturbances (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1, 2; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 2, 3, 4). Desired 

conditions at the mid-scale account for variability across the landscape and describe 

characteristics of tree groups, openness, tree density, distribution of age classes, predominantly 

even-aged groups and patches, fire regimes and behavior, and conditions in northern goshawk 

habitat (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-5, 6, 7, 8). Fine scale desired conditions describe conditions 

within and between tree groups as well as openings (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-9, 10). 

Guidelines provide sideboards that would promote or sustain old-growth forest attributes like 

large trees, old trees, snags, large logs, and occupancy of small wildlife species, and would reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic bark beetle outbreaks (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-G-1, 2, 3). References to 

100- to 300-acre stands for old growth in alternative A have been removed and replaced with a 

desired condition that describes old-growth structure as stands or patches over large areas where 

old-growth components are concentrated (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-2). This better reflects 

the natural fire regime in this ERU. Alternative B (modified) also removes language that requires 

the use of 10,000-acre blocks and vegetation structural stages for planning.

Alternative B (modified) removes the plan language limitations that restrict the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness, allowing wildfire to play its natural role 

in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative A, 

alternative B (modified) removes the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction and would help maintain openings, improve resilience, and reduce 

vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire in these areas.

Under alternative B (modified), Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire occurs in seven management 

areas: Pine Belt, San Francisco Peaks, Inner Basin, Mount Elden, Anderson Mesa, Lake Mary 

Watersheds, and Long Valley. Most of this ERU (88 percent) occurs within San Francisco Peaks 

(53 percent), Mt. Elden (16 percent), and Pine Belt (19 percent) Management Areas. Plan 

language for the Pine Belt and Mount Elden Management Areas does not focus on Mixed Conifer 

with Infrequent Fire or terrestrial ERUs. Plan language for the San Francisco Peaks Management 

Area broadly addresses recreation, the cultural significance of the San Francisco Peaks, and 

limitations on horse and pack stock on the Humphrey’s Trail and Weatherford Trail above Doyle 

Saddle. This has little impact on this ERU. However, a standard that would prohibit recreational 

livestock use in the watersheds draining into the Inner Basin could prevent ground and vegetation 

impacts to localized portions of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (MA-Peaks-S-3). 

Plan components direct managers to reduce fire hazard, intensity, and severity in order to protect 

human life and property (FW-WUI-DC-1). When wildland-urban interface intersects with a 

mixed-severity fire regime like Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, characteristic ecosystem 

function would be modified to promote low-severity surface fires that rarely spread as crown fire; 

forests in the wildland-urban interface would be dominated by early seral, fire-adapted species 

growing in a more open condition than the general forest; and wildland-urban interface may have 

a higher frequency of disturbance from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource 

objectives, and/or vegetative treatments than the natural disturbance regime (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 

7, 8). Treated portions of the ERU in the wildland-urban interface would move away from desired 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

154

conditions and may result in a different species composition and structure than what Mixed 

Conifer with Infrequent Fire is adapted to. This departure could be mitigated by promoting 

wildland-urban interface conditions (fuel loading, basal area, logs, snags) at the lower end of the 

range give in vegetation community desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-5, 9). This departure could 

also be mitigated by spatially arranging these structural components to reduce fire hazard and 

increase suppression success, and allowing fuel loading or tree densities at the higher end of the 

range where it provides for important fine-scale habitat structure or cover, as long as it meets the 

overall intent of protecting wildland-urban interface values-at-risk (FW-WUI-DC-10; FW-WUIG-1). 

The plan language that refers to outdated direction from the 1995 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery 

Plan has been removed. A guideline in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plant section requires managers to 

apply habitat management objectives and species protection measures from approved recovery 

plans to activities that occur within federally listed species habitat (FW-WFP-G-1). As with all 

alternatives, treatments that occur within Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and other habitats 

would follow approved recovery plans and would undergo consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

About 347 acres of this ERU would fall within the Abineau recommended wilderness area. 

Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized 

vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 5; SARWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values 

would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and nonmechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). 

Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from 

motorized or mechanized uses, which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by 

Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 

Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 

11). However, limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make 

them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether 

restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result 

in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs 

and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the 

trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas 

more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or 

establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire 

regime, and biodiversity. This would have little impact because this is less than 1 percent of the 

ERU.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). Only the Abineau recommended wilderness 

includes Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, the same as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

155

Spruce-Fir

Affected Environment 

Amount

On the Coconino NF, 13,946 acres of Spruce-Fir ERU lie within the administrative boundary. The 

forest manages 100 percent of the acres. 

Table 24 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Spruce-Fir ERU would 

be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The abundance is categorized as 

Rare because, at 13,946 acres, it occupies less than 1 percent of the forest. By definition, habitats 

classified as rare generally cover less than 1 percent of the forest and are rarely encountered.

Habitat Quality and Distribution

The Spruce-Fir ERU occurs in some of the coldest, wettest, and highest elevation sites on the 

forest. Spruce-Fir is often dominated by Engelmann spruce, but contains other species, depending 

on elevation. The understory commonly includes currants, maples, honeysuckle, common juniper, 

alpine clover, and sedges. It can be subdivided into lower elevation (Spruce-Fir Mix) and upper 

elevation (Subalpine Spruce-Fir), each with differing fire regimes and subdominant species 

composition. 

The upper elevation subtype is bounded by Alpine Tundra ERU above about 11,500 feet. The 

lower elevation subtype resembles Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire except with a different 

composition of tree species, due to colder and wetter conditions, and it is a transition zone 

between Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and the upper elevation Spruce-Fir Mix. In the lower 

elevation subtype, the common tree species are aspen, Douglas-fir, white fir, and southwestern 

white/limber pine. The climax forest is dominated by Engelmann spruce, white fir, and 

occasionally blue spruce. Subdominant species may include corkbark/subalpine fir, white fir, and 

bristlecone pine. In the upper elevation subtype, the dominant tree species are Engelmann spruce 

and cork bark fir (subalpine fir). Patches of aspen are occasionally present, but are usually absent. 

Natural disturbances in these subtypes typically occur at two temporal and spatial scales; largescale, infrequent disturbances (mostly fire) and small-scale, frequent disturbances (e.g., fire, 

insects, disease, and wind). This ERU is characterized by infrequent, high-severity fire (fire 

return interval of over 200 years and over 75 percent overstory replacement). 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 24 shows 

that the vegetation quality of the Spruce-Fir ERU is fair, or moderately departed from reference 

conditions. It is expected to trend toward desired conditions as trees in the young to mid-aged 

seral stage grow into mature stages. Other expected changes are increases in tree density, shifts in 

species composition to more shade-tolerant species, and increases in fuel loading and continuity. 

Soil is similar to reference conditions and has a static trend relative to reference conditions. 

Spruce-Fir ERU has a high likelihood of being a limiting factor to the viability of the associated 

species considering vegetation quality. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for 

habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of 

soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives. 

Spruce-Fir has a moderately departed fire return interval with a static trend relative to reference 

conditions. There was a shift in age class distribution within the Spruce-Fir ERU, as a result of a 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

156

series of large wildfires in the early 1900s. These fires removed a substantial portion of the 

mature forest and reinitiated the stands. There is currently a substantial surplus of young to midaged trees. Sources of more frequent disturbance (e.g., small fires, insects, disease, and wind 

throw) have been less common recently, resulting is a deficit of early seral stages such as 

herbaceous openings, seedlings, and young aspen. 

In 2007, there were an estimated 340 acres affected by spruce beetle. Spruce beetle outbreaks are 

typically associated with warm temperatures during the growing season and disturbance events 

such as sudden increases in woody debris from wind throw and logging slash. Outbreaks of 

spruce beetle tend occur infrequently because the beetle prefers areas dominated by dense stands 

of large-diameter spruce. When outbreaks do occur, their impacts convert Spruce-Fir forests to 

fir-dominated forests. There are an unknown number of acres affected by true fir beetles. This is 

considered to be within the historic range of variability, because only a small number of acres are 

affected, and native insects and disease are thought to be at endemic levels for the ERU (USDA 

Forest Service 2009a). An exotic spruce aphid (Elatobium abietinum) became established in the 

late 1990s, and may pose a risk to spruce species if populations expand (Lynch et al. 2007 and 

USDA Forest Service 2009a). Five invasive weed species (dalmatian toadflax, cheatgrass, bull 

thistle, musk thistle, and houndstongue) are present, but their populations are few in number and 

acreage, so are not considered a threat to this ERU. 

Warmer and drier weather resulting from climate change may increase stress levels on the major 

tree species within this ERU, leading to high levels of mortality in these components, dramatic 

shifts in the structure and function, and possible disappearance of the ERU on the forest. Under 

the scenario of warming and drying conditions, this high-elevation ERU cannot migrate upward 

to higher elevations to escape climate change (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Soils in Spruce-Fir have a low departure and a static trend. 

Table 24 shows that there is a high likelihood that Spruce-Fir habitat could be limiting to the 

associated species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species was 

derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond 

faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Table 24 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

157

Table 24. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Spruce-Fir ERU

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Rare Rare San Francisco Peaks 

QualityVegetationFair, 

trending 

toward

Fair, trending 

toward

desired conditions ragwort, evening 

grosbeak, goldencrowned kinglet, 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, static MacGillivray’s warbler,

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High High Swainson’s thrush, 

three-toed woodpecker, 

bristlecone pine,

Management 

effect

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.

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.

Colorado blue 

columbine, common 

moonwort, corkbark

(subalpine) fir, graceful 

buttercup, reflected 

moonwort

About 81 percent of this ERU is in designated wilderness, mainly within the Kachina Peaks 

Wilderness, with about 225 acres in the Kendrick Mountain Wilderness. The Kendrick Mountain 

Wilderness is managed under the Kaibab National Forest land management plan. The remainder 

of this ERU is within the permit area for the Snowbowl Ski Area and the Inner Basin of the San 

Francisco Peaks. About 970 acres are within the Inner Basin Management Area, which is one of 

the water sources for Flagstaff. It contains several deep water wells, springs, and is closed to 

motor vehicle traffic except that necessary to maintain the infrastructure of the water system. 

About 1,730 acres occur within the San Francisco Peaks Management Area.

The Spruce-Fir Forest contains the San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area. The existing San 

Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area was established in 1931, and is an example of a 

bristlecone pine/tundra/old-growth spruce-fir community. The RNA preserves the characteristics 

of the transition zone between Mixed Conifer and Alpine Tundra with populations of bristlecone 

pine, and occurs completely within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Currently, the research natural 

area is 1,010 acres in size, but is proposed to be expanded in alternative A. The proposed 

expansion includes Spruce-Fir.

Risk Factors

Primary threats to Spruce-Fir ERU are spruce beetles and an exotic spruce aphid (Elatobium 

abietinum). Climate change could also impact this ERU although it is beyond the control of the 

Forest Service. Extended drought, reduced snowpack, early melting of snowpack, or elevated 

temperatures as a consequence of climate change could significantly alter species composition 

and vegetation structure. Vulnerability to insect and disease could increase. Under these 

conditions, tree mortality in all seral stages and age classes could increase. Some species may be 

able to migrate or establish in suitable habitat at different elevations or aspects if they are 

genetically adapted to do so within the time frame that changes due to climate occur. If damage 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

158

from the exotic spruce aphid increases, the relative proportion of Engelmann spruce in spruce-fir 

could decrease dramatically.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 24. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section. Although no significant weed issues have 

been identified in Spruce-Fir, this guidance would be useful if weed issues occur in the future. 

A portion of Spruce-Fir ERU occurs within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. All alternatives 

recognize wilderness and incorporate appropriate direction (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SAWild-DC-1 to 8; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness direction provides an added 

layer of protection for the Spruce Fir ERU, such as prohibiting motorized and mechanized travel, 

which would reduce accelerated erosion. Management would emphasize wilderness recreation 

and watershed condition, while maintaining wilderness resource values. Livestock grazing would 

be managed under Congressional guidelines for grazing in wilderness (1987 Plan, page 105; FSM 

2323.22), and therefore, could still occur if approved under site-specific environmental analysis. 

Corrective measures would be taken if overuse causes unacceptable resource damage and the 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness would be closely monitored to determine whether corrective measures 

are needed (1987 Plan, page 105; SA-Wild-DC-1; SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Although natural processes, such as fire, are encouraged in wilderness areas (1987 Plan, page 

112; SA-Wild-DC-4), applicable laws and policies may decrease opportunities to manage wildfire 

for resource benefits or use prescribed fire. This is because mechanical treatments, tools, and 

motorized vehicles are prohibited; therefore, crews could not use vehicles to enter or exit a 

wilderness, nor could they use chainsaws, an essential tool in fire management. Consequently 

there is a greater potential for the fire to escape containment and the safety risk to firefighters is 

higher because there would be a reduced ability to evacuate the area in the event of an unexpected 

change in fire behavior (USDA Forest Service 2016c). High-severity fire would move this ERU 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

159

toward desired conditions, should it occur, and early seral or shade-intolerant species such as 

aspen would establish or be maintained within the burned areas. Lack of fire would move this 

ERU away from desired conditions; however, because the fire return interval is 200 + years, and 

tree growth is relatively slow at high elevations, it may be years before the impacts to vegetation 

structure, composition, and function are noticeable. While the vegetation is departed from 

reference conditions, it is within the historic range of variability because this ERU experiences 

infrequent high-severity fires. There have been few large high-severity fires in this ERU since the 

1900s, but the historic fire return interval is over 200 years, so this is within the expected range 

(USDA Forest Service 2009a).

The Spruce-Fir ERU occurs within the Inner Basin Management Area for all alternatives. Soil 

and vegetation conditions would be maintained or improved through the following plan direction: 

Recreation in the Inner Basin is restricted to day use (1987 Plan page 192; MA-InBsn-G-7); 

grazing is not allowed and the area is not part of any grazing allotment (1987 Plan, page 192; 

Chapter 4 of Revised Plan, Grazing Suitability, table 12); and the use of recreational livestock is 

prohibited above Doyle Saddle and above the watershed cabin (1987 Plan, page 192; MA-PeaksS-1; MA-InBsn-S-1). 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 24 shows 

that under alternative A, the vegetation quality of Spruce-Fir is classified as Fair, which means it 

has a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness of 

distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is somewhat reduced. It would trend toward

desired conditions. Under alternative A, management of Spruce-Fir is not expected to change 

over current levels. Vegetation condition is expected to remain moderately departed, but trending 

toward the desired conditions. Specifically, the current departed condition related to 

underrepresented early successional species, excessive density, poor age class diversity, and 

deficit herbaceous vegetation is expected to persist. However, in the absence of large-scale 

disturbance, the mid-aged seral stage would develop into mature trees and small-scale 

disturbances would replenish the early seral community components. Fire return interval is 

expected to remain highly departed, but maintain a static trend relative to the desired conditions. 

Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

There is a high likelihood that Spruce-Fir could be a limiting factor to the viability of the 

associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because 

vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would 

better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 4. This means there could be 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 contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of 

Spruce-Fir and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives.

Alternative A provides little to no explicit desired conditions for Spruce-Fir ERU, but rather it is 

accounted for under management direction for wilderness. The small portion of the ERU that is 

not in MA 1 (Wilderness) or MA 16 (Inner Basin) is within MA 4 (Ponderosa Pine and Mixed 

Conifer Above 40 Percent Slopes). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

160

The San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area includes about 932 acres of Spruce-Fir and has a 

dual designation with the Kachina Peaks Wilderness (1987 Plan page 193), and would be 

managed according to that direction. This alternative also has two additions to the San Francisco 

Peaks Research Natural Area, which includes about 138 acres of Spruce-Fir. The additions are

also within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness boundary. The effects are the same as described under 

wilderness in the Common to All Alternatives section above. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in Spruce-Fir, but 

there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildland-urban 

interface (such as near Arizona Snow Bowl) (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 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 this ERU. 

For fire management in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, the objective is to hold fires to 10 acres or 

less, while choosing the suppression tactics that minimize damage to soil and water resources 

(1987 Plan, page 112). This is repeated for the Inner Basin MA (1987 Plan, page 192). This 

guidance does not acknowledge the reference condition within the Spruce-Fir ERU where 

infrequent, high-severity stand-replacing fire was within the historic range of variability. The 

acreage limits would be difficult to obtain, especially with the presence of wilderness that limits 

suppression options, departed conditions, and dense stand structure. 

Alternative A does not address climate change.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 24 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Spruce-fir would be fair with a trend 

toward desired conditions. This means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions and 

the number, size, and evenness of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is somewhat 

reduced. Under alternative B (modified), the departed condition related to underrepresented early 

successional species, excessive density, poor age class diversity, and deficit understory vegetation 

is expected to persist; however, in the absence of large-scale disturbance, the mid-aged would 

develop into mature trees and small-scale disturbances would replenish the early seral community 

components. 

Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

There would be a high likelihood that Spruce-Fir would be a limiting factor to the viability of 

associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because 

vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would 

better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect for alternative B (modified) is a 2, which indicates plan components 

under this alternative maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat 

occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of 

Spruce-Fir and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

161

Alternative B (modified) provides direction to promote properly functioning ecosystems that are 

resilient to natural disturbances and climate change (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-4). The desired 

conditions for Spruce-Fir promote a functioning ecosystem that contains all of the components, 

processes, and natural levels of disturbance historically maintained in the vegetation community, 

while providing a mosaic of structural and seral stages (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1) and old-growth 

components (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-2), which are important for wildlife and provide structural 

diversity within the ERU. This ERU is dominated by vigorous trees, while containing declining 

trees, snags, and woody debris (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-3). These components provide direction for 

the associated tree species including aspen, bristlecone pine, and corkbark (subalpine fir). 

Implementation of desired conditions in Spruce-Fir would result in structure and species 

composition that both reflect and support natural disturbance regimes. A mosaic of structural and 

seral stages would range in age from young to old and consist of multiple species. Canopies are 

more closed than in adjacent mixed conifer. These conditions would support infrequent mixedseverity fires in the lower-elevation subtype and very infrequent high-severity fires in the upperelevation subtype. Frequent small disturbances would result in groups and patches of tens of acres 

or less (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1, 5 6). Plant composition would be similar to site potential at the 

landscape level, yet could vary considerably at the fine and mid-scale in response to differing 

seral stages (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-4). 

Old-growth components and structure would occur over large areas as stands or patches where 

old-growth components are concentrated. They would shift in time and space as a result of 

succession, and tree growth and mortality (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-2). Habitat and food for wildlife 

and their prey would be provided by snags, downed logs, and coarse woody debris that vary in 

density by size class and seral stage. Snags would range in size from greater than 8 inches to 

greater than 18 inches (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-3, 7). 

Overarching 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 nonnative species and subspecies and properly functioning ecosystems, thereby, furthering 

sustainability and adaptability (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4, FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2). 

Desired conditions promote an understory that reflects the cooler moister conditions of the ERU: 

native grasses, forbs, sedges, mosses, liverworts, and/or shrubs (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1, 4). 

Vegetative ground cover and herbaceous vegetation would provide protection from accelerated 

soil erosion, promote water infiltration, and contribute to soil nutrient cycling, ecosystem function 

and species diversity (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-1, 4, 9). These provide guidance for common and 

rare plant species in the ERU, including San Francisco Peaks ragwort, Colorado blue columbine, 

and graceful buttercup. 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness), allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). 

Plan components direct managers to reduce fire hazard, intensity, and severity in order to protect 

human life and property (FW-WUI-DC-2). When wildland-urban interface intersects with a highseverity fire regime like Spruce-Fir, characteristic ecosystem function would be modified to 

promote low-severity surface fires that rarely spread as crown fire; forests in the wildland-urban 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

162

interface would be dominated by early seral, fire-adapted species growing in a more open 

condition than the general forest; and wildland-urban interface may have a higher frequency of 

disturbance from prescribed burning, wildfires managed for resource objectives, and/or vegetative 

treatments than the natural disturbance regime (FW-WUI-DC-3, 4, 7, and 8). This proportion of 

the ERU would move away from desired conditions and may result in a different species 

composition and structure than what Spruce-Fir is adapted to. This departure could be mitigated 

by promoting wildland-urban interface conditions (fuel loading, basal area, logs, snags) at the 

lower end of the range given in vegetation community desired conditions (FW-WUI-DC-5, 9). 

This departure could also be mitigated by spatially arranging these structural components to 

reduce fire hazard and increase suppression success, and allowing fuel loading or tree densities at 

the higher end of the range where it provides for important fine-scale habitat structure or cover as 

long as it meets the overall intent of protecting wildland-urban interface values-at-risk (FW-WUIDC-5, 9, 10; FW-WUI-G-1). This is intended to mitigate the risks to the wildland-urban interface 

and associated infrastructure.

Plan language in the Inner Basin Management Area and San Francisco Peaks Management Area 

would promote properly functioning ecosystems and watersheds, and would reduce 

human-caused disturbance to soil, vegetation, and water in the Spruce-Fir ERU. There are goals 

for properly functioning watersheds that are resilient to natural and human disturbances; for 

functioning vegetation, soil, and riparian areas that facilitate precipitation infiltration and 

groundwater recharge; for water quality that meets or exceeds Arizona water quality standards; 

and for low risk of substantial damage from uncharacteristic fire and recreation to water quality 

and supply, visual quality, and cultural integrity (MA-InBsn-DC-1, 2, 3, 4). Erosion and 

sedimentation would be reduced and watersheds would be protected through maintenance of 

roads and trails (MA-InBsn-G-4), restriction of motorized access to authorized vehicles necessary 

for area administration on Forest Roads 146, 6437, and a portion of 553 (MA-InBsn-G-5; MAPeaks-G-1), and limitation of dispersed recreation to day-use only (MA-InBsn-G-7). 

Like alternative A, this alternative includes the eastside expansion of the San Francisco Peaks 

Research Natural Area in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Although wilderness direction would 

prevail, the desired conditions for research natural areas are to provide excellent examples of the 

ecological features for which they were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1), to function as 

reference areas to study natural processes, and to serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term 

ecological change where natural conditions and processes are preserved and maintained (SARNABotGeo-DC-2). San Francisco Peaks RNA and other RNAs on the forest provide 

opportunities for research, study, observation, monitoring and for educational opportunities that 

do not modify the conditions for which they were established (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-4), while 

preserving and maintaining genetic diversity (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-3). The expansion includes 

portions of this ERU, as well as a portion of Alpine Tundra ERU, and would include some of the 

occurrences of San Francisco Peaks ragwort. 

There are no treatment objectives under this alternative. Furthermore, the vast majority of this 

ERU is located within wilderness and treatment is not expected to increase over current levels. 

Underrepresented early successional species, high density, poor age class diversity, and deficit 

understory vegetation is expected to persist; however, in the absence of large-scale disturbance, 

the mid-aged would develop into mature trees and small-scale disturbances would replenish the 

early seral community components. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

163

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified).

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified).

Alpine Tundra

Affected Environment 

Amount

On the Coconino NF, 939 acres of Alpine Tundra ERU lie within the administrative boundary and 

the forest manages 100 percent of the ERU.

Table 25 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that the Alpine Tundra ERU 

would be a limiting factor to the associated species. The abundance is categorized as rare 

because, at 939 acres, it occupies about 0.1 percent of the forest. Habitats classified as rare 

generally cover less than 1 percent of the forest. Alpine Tundra is rarely encountered because it 

only occurs on the San Francisco Peaks. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

The Alpine Tundra ERU is found at the highest elevations on the forest on the San Francisco 

Peaks. This is the only area of Alpine Tundra located on National Forest System lands in Arizona; 

it is also one of the southernmost extents of Alpine Tundra in the continental U.S. 

Alpine Tundra ERU typically has sparse vegetation including grasses, forbs, lichens, and low 

shrubs. Low vegetative cover and high rock content (80 percent) is typical of TES soil unit 850, 

which is the primary soil unit in the ERU (USDA Forest Service 1995c). Alpine Tundra consists 

of three main habitat associations: boulder fields, talus slopes, and alpine tundra meadows. 

Krummholz (i.e., areas of dwarfed, wind-twisted trees) occurs near tree line where trees transition 

to Alpine Tundra vegetation.

Primary natural disturbances in Alpine Tundra are climate-related. Vegetation is controlled by 

temperature and the presence of soil, wind, snow accumulation, slope, and aspect. The dynamics 

of freeze-thaw cycles and wind give rise to unusual shapes of trees and characteristic plant forms 

such as cushion plants. Episodic weather-related factors are the major natural disturbance 

processes and include extreme temperatures, solar radiation, high winds, avalanches, and 

moisture. Alpine Tundra is not a fire-adapted ERU, and it is highly unlikely that fire would occur 

there. Wildland fires and invasive or noxious weeds have had little to no effect on this habitat. 

However, year-round off-trail recreation can trample plants and damage habitat by causing soil 

compaction, and moving rocks, which can provide microsites for Alpine Tundra vegetation except 

when it is not protected by snow. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 25 shows 

that the vegetation quality and soil quality of Alpine Tundra are classified as good. This means 

the ERU has a low departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or 

evenness in distribution across the landscape are similar to reference conditions. Vegetation 

quality is trending away from reference conditions due to climate change and weather patterns 

that have favored a transition into more meadow subtypes. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

164

Soil condition has a static trend relative to reference conditions. 

There is a moderate likelihood that Alpine Tundra habitat could be limiting to the associated 

species. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species was derived by 

combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation 

quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil 

to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

Table 25. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Alpine Tundra ERU

Habitat Existing Alternatives A, B (modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Rare Rare San Francisco Peaks 

QualityvegetationGood, trending 

away due to 

climate change

Good, trending away but may become 

Fair, trending away due to climate 

change

ragwort, crenulate 

moonwort, bearded 

gentian, blackroot sedge, 

common moonwort, 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, static Dane’s dwarf gentian, 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate Moderate different-nerve sedge, 

graceful buttercup,

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.

reflected moonwort,

spider saxifrage

Table 25 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

About 898 acres (96 percent of the ERU) occur within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. The 

remainder is within the Arizona Snowbowl ski permit area. About 77 acres of the San Francisco 

Peaks Research Natural Area occur in Alpine Tundra.

Risk Factors

The main risk factor for this ERU is climate change, which is outside the control of the Forest 

Service. The trend of the ERU could be negatively impacted by the predicted effects of climate 

change, which could result in the treeline moving upward in elevation, resulting in decreased 

abundance of Alpine Tundra. The other habitat threat is off-trail hiking. Off-trail hiking has the 

potential to reduce the vigor, maintenance, and survival of rare plants in localized areas in this 

ERU.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 25. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

165

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Most of Alpine Tundra occurs in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, which is on the San Francisco 

Peaks. Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 

Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to 

emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation prohibits motorized use and mechanized use. 

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil 

compaction and soil loss, and can introduce non-native species that compete with native plants 

for resources. This can negatively affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or 

populations. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key 

points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion 

could occur, depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere in 

the wilderness would reduce the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or 

mechanized use. 

The alternatives would not vary in effects for the 40 acres within the Snowbowl Ski Area, 

because the alternatives would not lead to changes in the operating permit for the site. 

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-GrazMgtAp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-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. Although no significant weed issues have 

been identified in Alpine Tundra, this guidance would be useful if weed issues occur in the future. 

All alternatives close the ERU 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, including the threatened San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort and its critical habitat. These components indirectly protect the talus slopes within the 

ERU by protecting the Alpine Tundra itself. 

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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

166

The portion of Alpine Tundra in the Inner Basin is limited to day-use foot traffic (1987 Plan page 

108; MA-InBsn-G-7). 

The San Francisco Peaks Alpine Tundra Management Plan (1984) is incorporated into alternative 

A and into the Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Peaks ragwort (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1987) by reference. This management plan discusses the physical components of the 

Alpine Tundra habitat, dividing the habitat into boulder fields, fellfield-snow-bed communities, 

and fellfields. The boulder fields and fellfields are roughly equivalent to the talus slopes. Only the 

fellfields are occupied by San Francisco Peaks ragwort.

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 25 shows 

that under alternative A, the vegetation quality of Alpine Tundra is classified as good, which 

means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness of 

distribution of habitat areas across the landscape is similar to reference conditions. There is a 

trend away from desired conditions due to climate change, which is causing a shift to more 

meadow habitat. Vegetation quality may become fair in the long term still with a trend away from 

desired conditions. Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to desired 

conditions. 

There is a moderate likelihood that Alpine Tundra could be a limiting factor to the viability of the 

associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil quality, because 

vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would 

better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect would be a 2, which means that plan components in alternative A 

maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat occurrences in the plan area, 

and thus, contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of Alpine Tundra and the viability of 

the associated species than alternative A.

The 1987 Plan lacks specific components for Alpine Tundra ERU, likely because it largely occurs 

in wilderness, so wilderness direction would prevail. The ERU is mentioned in the description of 

the Kachina Peaks Wilderness as a fragile 2-square-mile zone that contains a threatened plant 

(1987 Plan, page 101). 

In addition to occurring in designated wilderness, a portion of Alpine Tundra falls within the 

special permit Snowbowl Ski Area. The 1987 Plan adopts the EIS on the ski area proposal, and 

facility development is guided by the ski area master development plan based on approved 

environmental analysis (1987 Plan, pages 19, 188). This master development plan is done at the 

district level, not the forest Plan level. In developed recreation areas (i.e., Snowbowl), developed 

recreation is emphasized (1987 Plan, page 188). The Snowbowl special-use authorization area 

will be fenced to physically exclude grazing (1987 Plan, page 190). 

A portion of Alpine Tundra ERU falls within the Inner Basin Management Area. Alpine Tundra 

would be protected by plan components that close this management area to public travel by 

vehicle and domestic livestock. Day-use only foot or bicycle traffic would be permitted. The 

emphasis on watershed condition and protecting water quality should also protect Alpine Tundra 

(1987 Plan, pages 191, 192). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

167

The San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area includes 77 acres of Alpine Tundra and 

alternative A also proposes an expansion of the research natural area that includes an additional 

139 acres of the Alpine Tundra ERU. This acreage would have a dual designation with wilderness 

(1987 Plan, page 193) and would be managed according to that direction. 

Alternative A does not specifically address climate change or resiliency; however, it mentions that 

the purpose of the plan was to integrate planning principles from National Forest Management 

Act regulations (36 CFR 219.1 (b)) including responding to changing conditions of land and other 

resources, which could include climate change (1987 Plan, page 1). In comparison, climate 

change and resiliency are common themes in alternatives B (modified), C, and D.

Alternative A did not establish definitions, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines for 

talus slopes, and there is no direction for management of talus slopes and the habitats they 

provide (USDA Forest Service 2016i). Talus slopes are key habitats for some of the associated 

species. For additional information and analysis on talus slopes, see the Cliffs, Rocky Outcrops, 

and Talus Slopes section below. 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 25 shows 

that under alternative B (modified) the vegetation quality of Alpine Tundra would be good with a 

trend away from desired conditions. This means it has a low departure from desired conditions 

and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or 

only slightly reduced relative to desired conditions. Under alternative B (modified), it is unclear 

how departure would be affected. If current climate trends persist, the ERU may become 

moderately departed with respect to vegetation, and this trend would continue away from the 

desired condition. 

Soil quality would remain good with a static trend relative to desired conditions. 

There would be a moderate likelihood that Alpine Tundra would be a limiting factor to the 

viability of associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation quality was used instead of soil 

quality because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, 

and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect for alternative B (modified) is a 2, which indicates plan components 

under this alternative maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat 

occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of Alpine 

Tundra and the viability of the associated species similar to alternative A.

Alternative B (modified) provides direction that would promote properly functioning ecosystems 

that are resilient to natural disturbances and climate change; promote characteristic disturbances; 

and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4; FW-TerrERU-All-DC2). These components acknowledge the role of natural disturbance. For the Alpine Tundra ERU, 

these include disturbances such as weather extremes and natural shifting of the substrate (i.e., 

landslides). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has ERU-specific direction that provides for a 

functioning, resilient ecosystem with all its components, processes, and conditions that support 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

168

high-elevation ecological communities and sustain rare or narrowly endemic species, including 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort and graceful buttercup (FW-TerrERU-AT-DC-1, 2). 

Recreation would be managed to maintain, protect, or improve ecological attributes, processes 

and habitat for native species, and to be in balance with the capacity of other resources to support 

recreation activities (FW-TerrERU-AT-G-1; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; FW-Rec-All-G-2). Trail use would 

remain on established trail surfaces, especially in sensitive areas, and unplanned user-created 

trails are rare (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11). Trails should be designed, built, rerouted, or maintained 

using best management practices that address impacts to other resources and promote sustainable 

trail surfaces (FW-Rec-Trails-G-1.) 

The desired conditions for wilderness contribute to the preservation of San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort, graceful buttercup, and crenulate moonwort, and their habitat. A wilderness desired 

condition focuses on preserving the primitive integrity of wilderness, while preserving the range 

of social and ecological values (SA-Wild-DC-1). This would contribute to the conservation of the 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness and the Alpine Tundra within it, including the small portion occupied 

by San Francisco Peaks ragwort and its habitat, and other alpine species, by maintaining the 

ecological function of the area. A second desired condition (SA-Wild-DC-2) focuses on 

preserving ecosystems and ecological resources within wilderness by ensuring that they are 

functioning properly and reflect natural processes. Disturbances would play their natural role, 

while accounting for public health and safety outside of the wilderness area (SA-Wild-DC-4). 

Examples of disturbance in the Kachina Peaks Wilderness that affect San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort habitat are rock slides in the Alpine Tundra, and fires in the upper elevations of the 

Spruce-Fir forest. The desired conditions also promote diversity and the natural assemblage of 

native, indigenous species including San Francisco Peaks ragwort (SA-Wild-DC-3). 

Guidelines for wilderness state that management activities and permitted uses should be designed 

to maintain or move toward the desired conditions for wilderness and other resources (SA-WildG-1); that signs and cairns should be restricted to those necessary to protect resources or for 

public safety (SA-Wild-G-6); and that trails and signs should be managed to discourage and 

reduce off-trail travel (SA-Wild-G-9). These guidelines would protect Alpine Tundra vegetation 

by managing trail usage. 

Alternative B (modified) provides for the San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area as well as 

the eastside expansion that was analyzed in alternative A, but never implemented. The desired 

conditions for established and proposed RNAs are to provide excellent examples of the ecological 

features for which they were designated (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1) and function as reference areas 

to study natural processes and as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological change where 

natural conditions and processes are preserved and maintained (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-2). San 

Francisco Peaks RNA and other RNAs on the forest provide opportunities for research, study, 

observation, monitoring and for educational opportunities that do not modify the conditions for 

which they were established (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-4), while preserving and maintaining genetic 

diversity (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-3). With the inclusion of the Alpine Tundra habitat of San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort, the area will provide an example of the habitat and would be useful in 

the study of ecological change that could affect San Francisco Peaks ragwort and other species 

associated with Alpine Tundra, especially in the future with predicted climate change.

The components discussed for the Alpine Tundra ERU also apply to the talus slopes within it. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) contains forestwide direction that protects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

169

biophysical components, including talus slopes. Desired conditions provide direction to keep 

geological features, including talus slopes, generally undisturbed by human activities, while 

maintaining the cultural and natural resource values of these features (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). 

They also specifically mention the importance of talus slopes as specialized habitat for San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort, and maintain and protect habitat for federally listed, sensitive, and rare 

wildlife and plant species associated with the special niche habitat (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-6, 7). 

Guidelines for geological features state that projects should be designed and forest uses should be 

managed to maintain the integrity and function of caves, karst, cliffs, and talus, and mitigation 

measures should be designed to mimic pre-disturbance conditions and functions (FW-BioPhysGeo-G-1). 

Alternative C

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

Alternative D

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

Riparian Forest Types

The three riparian forest types on the Coconino NF are: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 

(Cottonwood Willow), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (Mixed Broadleaf), and 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest (Montane Willow). Each riparian forest type consists of two or 

more riparian ERUs (see descriptions of riparian forest types and Appendix E in the Plan. 

Affected Environment 

Amount

There are about 3,158 acres of Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest within the administrative 

boundary of the Coconino NF. About 1,324 acres (42 percent) is managed by the forest. The 

remaining acres of Cottonwood Willow are in private, State, Tribal, and other Federal ownership. 

Table 26 summarizes the information used to estimate that the likelihood that Cottonwood 

Willow Riparian Forest Type would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species.

The abundance is categorized as rare because at 1,324 acres it occupies about 0.1 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as rare generally have less than 100 occurrences, or patches of the 

habitat cover less than 1 percent of the forest. 

There are about 8,723 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest within the 

administrative boundary of the Coconino NF. About 5,926 acres (68 percent) is managed by the 

forest. Most of the acreage not managed by the forest is privately owned. 

Table 27 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest Type would be a limiting factor to the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as Rare because at 5,926 acres it occupies about 0.3 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as Rare generally have less than 100 occurrences, or patches of the 

habitat cover less than 1 percent of the forest. 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest covers approximately 3,908 acres within the administrative 

boundary. About 3,568 acres (91 percent) is managed by the Coconino NF. Most of the remaining 

acres are on private land.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

170

Table 28 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest Type would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The 

abundance is categorized as rare, because at 3,568 acres, it occupies about 0.2 percent of the 

forest. Habitats classified as rare generally have less than 100 occurrences, or patches of habitat 

that cover less than 1 percent of the forest. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution 

In reference conditions, riparian forests were functioning properly and invasive or non-native

species were not present. Proper functioning condition means that adequate vegetation, 

landforms, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows; 

filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in floodplain 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. When riparian forests are properly functioning, vegetation 

composition, structure and function is diverse, productive, and provides habitat for those species 

that rely on them for their survival. 

Primary natural disturbances in riparian forest ecosystems include flooding, adjacent landslides, 

and changing climatic conditions, such as drought or extreme temperatures.

Cottonwood Willow occurs in patches distributed along the lower gradient reaches of perennial 

streams including the Verde River, Towel Creek, Lower Oak Creek, Lower West Clear Creek, and 

Dry Beaver Creek as well as other perennial and intermittent streams and tributaries. Dominant 

vegetation includes: Fremont cottonwood, willow, ash, box elder, alder and others. Various 

grasses and forbs are usually present. Associated higher stream terraces support a mix of riparian 

and upland vegetation, including mesquite and desert willow. Floodplains tend to have greater 

vegetation productivity (i.e., biomass) than terraces. Consequently, floodplains have greater 

ability to resist erosion and recycle nutrients.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 26 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is classified as fair 

and is slowly trending toward reference conditions. This means it has a moderate departure from 

reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is somewhat reduced relative to reference conditions. Localized areas have a static 

trend relative to reference as a result of high dispersed recreational impacts. These areas include 

some portions of the Verde River and associated tributaries, and easily accessible areas of Dry 

Beaver Creek, Lower Oak Creek, and Lower West Clear Creek. Lower Oak Creek has been the 

most impacted by the ground disturbance and vegetation removal from high intensity unmanaged 

recreation and by degraded water quality resulting from unmanaged sanitation. 

Soil quality in Cottonwood Willow is considered poor and trending slowly toward reference

conditions. Impaired conditions exist where recreation disturbances occur or in some areas that 

are still recovering from past livestock grazing. In these areas, there is lower surface litter, lower 

understory production, poor species composition, and more visible sheet and rill erosion 

compared to reference conditions. Consequently, these soils have a reduced ability to recycle 

nutrients and resist erosion. Soils on lower-lying floodplains are similar to reference conditions 

and able to recycle nutrients and resist erosion within their inherent capability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

171

There is a high likelihood that Cottonwood Willow Riparian would be a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for riparian functional condition. Riparian functional condition was 

used instead of soil quality because riparian function is assumed to respond faster than soil to 

treatments or disturbances and thus would better reflect differences between alternatives.

Table 26 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Mixed Broadleaf occurs in patches distributed across mid-elevation portions of Sycamore 

Canyon, West Clear Creek, Upper Oak Creek, Red Tank Draw, Wet Beaver Creek, Walker Creek, 

Fossil Creek, and associated tributaries. It is adjacent to the communities of Sedona and Village 

of Oak Creek. Mixed Broadleaf consists of a vegetation mix of riparian woodlands and 

shrublands with various dominant species, depending on site-specific characteristics. Vegetation 

can include: Arizona sycamore, thin leaf alder, willow, conifers, box elder, narrow leaf or 

Fremont cottonwoods, velvet ash, Arizona walnut, and often contains oaks and conifers, including 

Arizona cypress, from adjacent uplands. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 27 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest is classified 

as good with the majority of the habitat slowly trending toward reference conditions. This means 

it has a low departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness 

in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative to reference 

conditions. There are several localized exceptions to the condition and trend in areas that are 

accessible to high recreation use that have resulted in soil compaction and vegetation damage. 

These areas are:

• Beaver Creek 5th code HUC: Condition fair, trend slowly toward reference condition; 

• Oak Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good to fair, trend static relative to reference 

condition; 

• West Clear Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend static relative to reference 

condition; 

• Fossil Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend slowly toward reference condition in 

general, but away from reference condition in high recreation use areas. 

Soil condition and productivity in Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous are good with a static trend 

relative to reference conditions. 

There is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian would be a limiting 

factor to the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the 

value for habitat abundance with the value for riparian functional condition. Riparian functional 

condition was used instead of soil quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster 

than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

172

Table 26. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest type

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Rare Rare Rare Southwestern willow 

QualityRiparian 

Functional 

Condition

Fair, slowly 

toward

Fair, slowly 

toward except 

portions of Dry 

Beaver and 

Spring Creeks

Good, slowly toward flycatcher, western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Colorado pikeminnow, 

Gila chub, Gila 

topminnow, 

Verde River, 

Towel Creek

Mostly fair, 

slowly toward. 

Some portions 

of Verde River 

Static (Childs, 

private lands, 

recreation 

impacts)

Mostly fair, 

slowly toward. 

Some portions 

static (Childs, 

private land, 

areas with 

recreation 

impacts).

Good, toward headwater chub, 

loach minnow, 

razorback sucker, 

spikedace, roundtail 

chub, narrow-headed 

gartersnake, Northern 

Mexican gartersnake, 

lowland leopard frog, 

Spring Creek, 

Dry Beaver 

Creek

Fair, static Fair, static Good, toward bald eagle, desert 

sucker, Little Colorado 

sucker, roundtail 

Quality-Soil Poor, slowly 

toward

Poor, slowly toward chub, Sonora sucker, 

a caddisfly 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High High Moderate (Lepidostoma knulli), 

a caddisfly 

Management 

effect 

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area. 

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.

(Wormaldia planae), A 

mayfly (Moribaetis 

mimbresaurus), 

Balmorhea saddlecase caddisfly, 

California floater, 

Fossil springsnail, 

Page springsnail, 

western red bat, 

Arizona toad, common 

black hawk, bluehead 

sucker, longfin dace, 

Arizona snaketail, 

Persephone’s darner, 

Redrock stonefly, 

beaver

Table 27 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Montane Willow is patchily distributed along perennial water at higher elevations such as East 

Clear Creek and its tributaries; seasonally intermittent streams; wet meadows; and isolated 

springs. Trees include: Bebb’s willow, narrowleaf cottonwood, velvet ash, cherry, box elder, 

Arizona walnut, and Arizona alder. Dominant shrubs include red osier dogwood, willows, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

173

woods rose. The understory consists of a variety of grass and grasslike species, including sedge, 

Baltic rush, spikerush, and deergrass. Outlying populations may have unique genetic components. 

Table 27. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest type

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Rare Rare Chiricahua leopard

Quality-Riparian 

Functional

Condition

Good, static to 

slowly toward

Good, static to 

slowly toward

Good, slowly toward 

except portions of 

Fossil Creek and Wet 

Beaver Creek are 

static in areas of high 

recreational impacts

frog, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, 

western yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Colorado 

pikeminnow, Gila 

chub, Gila 

Beaver Creek 5th

code HUC

Fair, slowly 

toward 

Fair, slowly 

toward

Good but fair in 

recreation impacted 

areas/toward

topminnow, Gila trout, 

headwater chub, loach

minnow, razorback 

Oak Creek 5th

code HUC

Good to fair, 

static

Good to fair, 

static

Good, toward sucker, roundtail chub, 

spikedace, narrowWest Clear 

Creek 5th code 

HUC

Good, static Good, static Good, slowly toward headed gartersnake, 

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake, lowland 

Fossil Creek 

Lower Verde 

River 5th code 

HUC

Good, slowly 

toward but 

trending away in 

areas of high 

recreation use

on Fossil Creek

Good, slowly 

toward but 

away in high 

recreation use 

areas on Fossil 

Creek

Good, toward leopard frog, bald 

eagle, desert sucker, 

Little Colorado sucker,

roundtail chub, Sonora 

sucker, a caddisfly 

(Lepidostoma knulli), a 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, static Good, slowly toward caddisfly (Wormaldia 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate except 

high in Beaver 

Creek 5th code 

HUC and 

portions of Oak 

Creek 5th code 

HUC 

Moderate 

except high in 

Beaver Creek 

5th code HUC

and portions of 

Oak Creek 5th

code HUC

Moderate except high 

in Beaver Creek 5th

code HUC in high 

recreation use areas

planae), A mayfly 

(Moribaetis 

mimbresaurus), 

Balmorhea saddlecase caddisfly,

California floater, 

Fossil springsnail,

Management 

effect 

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management 

for some 

habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area. 

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.

common black hawk, 

McGillivray’s warbler, 

beaver, western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Alcove bog orchid, 

Arizona bugbane, 

Cochise sedge, 

Ertter’s Rose, 

Metcalfe’s tick trefoil, 

MacDougal’s aletes

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 28 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Montane Willow Riparian Forest is generally classified as 

good. This means it has a low departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat 

areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative 

to reference conditions. The trend is slowly toward to static relative to reference conditions. There 

are several localized exceptions to the condition and trend in areas that are accessible to high 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

174

recreation use. High recreation use has resulted in soil compaction and vegetation damage. These 

areas are:

• Portions of East Clear Creek and its tributaries in the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC: 

Condition poor, trend static relative to reference condition;

• Fern Mountain Botanical Area: Condition poor, trend static relative to reference 

condition. 

Table 28. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Montane Willow Riparian Forest type

Habitat Existing Alternative A

Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and 

D

Associated 

Species

Abundance Rare Rare Chiricahua leopard 

QualityRiparian 

Functional 

Condition

Mostly Good, slowly 

toward to static

Good, static to 

trending slowly 

toward 

Good, slowly toward frog, Gila trout, Little 

Colorado spinedace, 

loach minnow, 

roundtail chub, 

East Clear 

Creek and 

tributaries in 

Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code 

HUC and Fern 

Mountain 

Botanical Area

Poor, static Fair, toward Good, toward narrow-headed 

gartersnake, bald 

eagle, desert sucker, 

Little Colorado 

sucker, Sonora

sucker, California 

floater, Western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, static Good, slowly toward common black 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Moderate except 

High in the Upper 

Clear Creek 5th code 

HUC in East Clear 

Creek and tributaries 

and Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area

Moderate 

except High in 

the Upper 

Clear Creek 5th

code HUC in 

East Clear 

Creek and 

tributaries and 

Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area

Moderate hawk, MacGillivray’s 

warbler, bluehead 

sucker, beaver, 

Arizona bugbane, 

Bebb's Willow, 

Blumer’s dock, 

Cochise sedge, 

Ertter’s rose

Management 

Effect 

Not applicable 3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management 

for some 

habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area.

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.

The poor riparian functional condition in portions of East Clear Creek and its tributaries is 

primarily due to excessive elk use and/or excessive livestock grazing, and nonpoint sources of 

sediment from roads. The poor riparian functional condition in the Fern Mountain Botanical Area 

is due to water diversions to private land, which reduces the amount of water that would have 

historically been associated with the botanical area. Soil quality (condition and productivity) is 

good with a static trend relative to reference conditions 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

175

Table 28 shows there is an overall moderate likelihood that Montane Willow Riparian Forest 

would be a limiting factor to the associated species in most areas. There is a high likelihood that 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest would be a limiting factor to the associated species in East Clear 

Creek and its tributaries in the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC and in the Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area. These likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the values for riparian functional condition. Riparian functional condition was used instead 

of soil quality, because riparian condition is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

Table 28 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Designated wilderness: There are 113 acres (9 percent) of Cottonwood Willow in designated 

wilderness: Mazatzal Wilderness (93 acres) and Sycamore Canyon (20 acres). There are about 

2,073 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous (35 percent) in designated wilderness: Fossil Springs 

(496 acres), Mazatzal (139 acres), Munds Mountain (412 acres), Red Rock-Secret Mountain 

(16 acres), Sycamore Canyon (350 acres), West Clear Creek (414 acres), and Wet Beaver Creek 

(248 acres). There are about 451 acres of Montane Willow (13 percent) in designated wilderness: 

Munds Mountain (13 acres), Red Rock- Secret Mountain (229 acres), West Clear Creek 

(191 acres), and Wet Beaver (18 acres). 

There are 487 acres (37 percent) of Cottonwood Willow on the scenic portion of the Verde Wild 

and Scenic River. 

There are 118 acres of Montane Willow (3 percent) in the Oak Creek Research Natural Area and 

proposed Rocky Gulch Research Natural Area.

There are 18 acres of Cottonwood Willow within the Verde Valley Botanical Area, 10 acres of 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian in the Fossil Springs Botanical Area, and 35 acres (less than 

1 percent) of Montane Willow in the Fern Mountain Botanical Area. 

There are 12 acres of Montane Willow Riparian Forest in the Griffith Springs Environmental 

Study Area. 

Associated Species

Associated species for Cottonwood Willow are listed in table 26, for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

in table 27, and for Montane Willow in table 28. 

Risk Factors

Threats common to streamcourses and riparian vegetation include uncharacteristic fire as a result 

of uncharacteristically dense upland forest conditions, dispersed recreation, roads and trails that 

occur in riparian areas or are hydrologically connected to them, upland grazing management 

practices, water diversion and use, and herbivory in riparian areas by domestic livestock and 

wildlife ungulates. Invasive non-native plants threaten the regeneration potential of native species 

in some portions of the riparian forest types.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

176

The increased risk of uncharacteristic fire results from past fire exclusion, which allowed forest 

conditions to become denser and more prone to fires that burn into the tree canopy, rather than 

predominantly in the understory. Uncharacteristic fires can result in high soil burn severity, 

accelerated erosion and excessive sedimentation to streamcourses, excessive or increased water 

flow, and uncharacteristic flooding, which can result stream channel scour, incision, and 

degradation and removal of vegetation and coarse woody debris in the riparian forest types. 

Uncharacteristic fire can also spread from adjacent fire-adapted ERUs into riparian forest types, 

especially during drought. These conditions result in loss of vegetation and drying of the riparian 

area, which can facilitate establishment or spread of invasive nonnative vegetation. Invasive 

plants such as tamarisk may also facilitate uncharacteristic fire behavior in riparian forests. 

Past fire exclusion has resulted in increased stand densities in upland areas topographically above 

or adjacent to riparian forest types. The increased tree density has resulted in increased 

evapotranspiration by trees in these upland areas, reducing the amount of water in the soil 

unsaturated zone, or vadose zone (i.e., water in soil above the permanent groundwater surface). 

These conditions have adversely affected aquifer recharge and groundwater discharge to surface 

waters, including springs and stream channels. Forest thinning in upland areas followed by 

reintroduction of fire to fire-adapted ERUs is expected to increase short-term vadose water. 

Springer et al. (2006) determined that a frequent reintroduction of fire following forest thinning 

and initial prescribed fire could maintain soil water levels sufficient for maintenance of 

conditions conducive to healthy riparian ecosystems. 

Dispersed recreation in easily accessed areas has the potential to remove or damage riparian 

vegetation, compact soil, and destabilize streambanks when excessive. In doing so, it creates 

areas of bare soil that leads to erosion and sedimentation into streams and reduces riparian 

function and water quality. Bare soils can readily become sites where nonnative and invasive 

plants become established, which can further alter riparian vegetation communities. 

Roads and trails in riparian forest types can redirect and concentrate surface water flows. This can 

result in decreased flows in some areas and excessive flows in others, altering water availability 

to riparian vegetation. The bare areas of roads and trails are prone to accelerated erosion and due 

to close proximity to stream channels have potential to deliver sediment directly to stream 

channels. They can also deliver sediment into adjacent riparian areas and bury riparian vegetation, 

including tree seedlings, reducing localized riparian forest regeneration potential.

Upland grazing management practices can result in areas of reduced vegetative cover and bare 

soils in localized areas where livestock concentrate for long periods or where trampling and 

trailing occurs. The consequences can include reduced water infiltration from bare areas leading 

to increased surface runoff and accelerated soil erosion, sediment delivery to riparian areas 

resulting in damage or loss of riparian vegetation, degradation of surface water quality, channel 

incision, headcutting, and gully formation. 

Excessive herbivory by domestic livestock and wildlife ungulates can remove excessive amounts 

of vegetation, lower densities, contribute to a loss of soil function, and alter vegetation structure 

and composition (Fleischner 1994). Currently, the forest does not permit livestock grazing along 

the Verde River. This restriction has resulted in improved riparian conditions along the river 

during the last 10 years. Many other allotments have also reduced occurrence of livestock grazing 

in perennial streams to hardened areas or to times when grazing pressure does not adversely affect 

riparian area condition. Consequently, herbivory is considered a threat in localized areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

177

Water diversion and use interrupts stream flow and prevents surface water from reaching riparian 

areas. Livestock tanks capture flow that could otherwise contribute to baseflow in riparian 

streamcourses. Numerous springs on the forest that have been developed (flow captured and 

diverted to troughs and water tanks) to support domestic livestock water needs. Water quantity is 

also at risk due to increased demand for water from the State’s growing population and 

commercial sector. As a result, many of the risks to water quality and quantity and watershed 

condition are outside the administrative control of the Forest Service either because their source is 

on lands of other ownership or because the State of Arizona has the authority to regulate them 

(such as water rights and diversions). 

Localized areas in the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC are at risk because of dispersed 

recreation and ungulate herbivory, which is under control of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. This HUC includes East Clear Creek, its tributaries and intermittent stream courses 

with riparian habitat. The areas of most concern are those that are accessible to human activities. 

This HUC is also recovering from a legacy of improperly located and poorly maintained roads 

(especially user-created roads) and a legacy off-highway vehicle use. Legacy issues refer to 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, soil loss, and erosion associated with historic grazing ; with 

areas that were open to off-highway vehicles prior to implementation of the Travel Management 

Rule; and with improperly located roads or past road maintenance. Soil and vegetation conditions 

that are a consequence of these legacy issues are expected to improve over time as the affected 

areas heal. 

The accessible areas of the Beaver Creek 5th code HUC are at risk because of dispersed 

recreation. This HUC is also recovering from a legacy off-highway vehicle use, a legacy of 

improperly located and poorly maintained roads (especially user-created roads), and legacy 

livestock grazing. This HUC includes Beaver Creek, Dry Beaver Creek, Red Tank Draw, Walker 

Creek, and some intermittent stream courses with riparian vegetation. 

The accessible areas of the Oak Creek 5th code HUC are threatened by dispersed recreation and 

affected by a legacy of improperly located and poorly maintained roads (especially user-created 

roads and social trails). The lower portion of Oak Creek is affected by legacy grazing issues and 

legacy off-highway vehicle use. This HUC includes Oak Creek, Spring Creek, and intermittent 

stream courses with riparian vegetation. Legacy road, off-highway vehicle use, and grazing issues 

refer to vegetation removal, soil compaction, soil loss, and erosion associated with past grazing 

practices; with areas that were open to off-highway vehicles prior to implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule; and issues with past road maintenance. Although some of the causes of the 

departures have been addressed, particularly with implementation of the Travel Management 

Rule, the sedimentation into connected watercourses, and the soil and vegetation issues should 

gradually decrease as the affected areas heal.

Portions of the Fossil-Lower Verde River 5th code HUC are at risk of high amounts of dispersed 

recreation. This HUC is recovering from a legacy off-highway vehicle use and poorly located and 

maintained roads (especially user-created roads). 

Invasive plants can cause a decline in quality of native species regeneration and cause a potential 

reduction in instream flows because they draw more water from the water table than native trees. 

The exception is along about 23 miles of the Verde River (from Camp Verde on down) and 

7 miles along Fossil Creek where riparian forests are trending toward reference conditions due to 

invasive weed treatments. Fire intensity and severity can increase in response to invasive plant 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

178

species, primarily tamarisk and Russian olive. Severe fires remove overstory species from burn 

areas and can convert these sites to a nonnative species mix. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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 would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

Under all alternatives, the forest would continue to pursue instream flow rights at similar levels 

(1987 Plan, page 206-116, 74; FW-Water-DC-1, 2, 5; FW-Water-G-3, 5), which, if obtained, 

would ensure that new requests for water rights would not negatively impact water quantity for 

wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation. 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 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 

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; 

FW-WFP-O-4; FW-Rip-All-G-3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2; FW-Water-G-4; FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8. 

The concept of filter strips in alternative A is replaced with the newer concept of aquatic 

management zones in alternative B (modified). Filter strips and aquatic management zones are 

best management practices that reduce sedimentation, soil compaction, and loss of vegetative 

cover from ground-disturbing management activities on soils, water quality, and riparian 

vegetation.

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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

179

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). 

About 9 percent of Cottonwood Willow, 35 percent of the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest, and 13 percent of the Montane Willow Riparian Forest is in designated wilderness. 

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SAWild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management because 

motorized use and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill or 

damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can introduce 

non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively affect the 

reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing activities are 

primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which invasive species 

introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur depending on the level of use. 

The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by reducing the risk of 

invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. However, limited 

access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require 

motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Lack of 

restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels 

of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or nonnative species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

About 118 acres of Montane Willow occur within the already designated Oak Creek Research 

Natural Area and the proposed Rocky Gulch Research Natural Area. All alternatives include 

beneficial guidance for management of research natural areas that would allow natural processes 

and natural conditions to prevail. This guidance would minimize recreational impacts by 

restricting camping, prohibiting recreation fires and limiting non-commercial group size (1987 

Plan, page 196-1; SA-RNABotGeo-S-1; SA-RNABotGeo-G-6). In addition, access should be 

restricted as needed to maintain their natural, unmodified condition and commercial tours would 

be prohibited except in support of approved research (1987 Plan, page 196-2; SA-RNABotGeo-S2). This guidance would reduce the potential for human-caused fires and maintain the natural 

conditions for which the research natural area was designated, which include properly functioning 

soils and vegetation. This guidance would also mitigate soil compaction, soil loss, and vegetation 

damage from some recreational activities. Designated wilderness direction would prevail in the 

Oak Creek Research Natural Area because it overlaps the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness. 

There are 18 acres (about 1 percent) of Cottonwood Willow within the Verde Valley Botanical 

Area, 10 acres (less than 1 percent) of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian in the Fossil Springs 

Botanical Area, and 35 acres (less than 1 percent) of Montane Willow in the Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area. Off-road travel in botanical areas is not allowed in any alternative (1987 Plan, 

page 194; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility corridors would also avoid 

botanical areas (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would result in less disturbance to 

soil and plants, in less erosion and soil compaction, and eliminate habitat damage from these 

activities. This is a negligible effect because of the small amount of acres involved. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

180

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

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 26 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is classified as fair.

This means it has a moderate departure from desired conditions and the number, size of habitat 

areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is somewhat reduced relative to desired 

conditions. Under the plan direction in alternative A, riparian functional condition is expected to 

slowly trend toward the desired condition of properly functioning, resilient riparian areas except 

in Spring Creek and Dry Beaver Creek where the trend would be static relative to desired 

conditions due to areas of high recreation use and private land. Soil quality in Cottonwood 

Willow would continue to be poor, but would slowly move toward desired conditions. 

There is a high likelihood that Cottonwood Willow would be a limiting factor to the viability of 

the associated species under this alternative. This likelihood was derived by combining the value 

for habitat abundance with the value for riparian functional condition. Riparian functional 

condition was used instead of soil quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster 

than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 27 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest is classified 

as good. This means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size of 

habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced 

relative to desired conditions. Under the plan direction in alternative A, riparian functional 

condition is expected to have a static trend or slowly trend toward the desired condition of 

properly functioning, resilient riparian areas. There are several localized exceptions to the 

condition and trend in areas that are accessible to high recreation use that has resulted in soil 

compaction and vegetation damage. These areas are:

• Beaver Creek 5th code HUC: Condition fair, trend slowly toward desired condition; 

• Oak Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good to fair, trend static relative to desired 

condition; 

• West Clear Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend static relative to desired 

condition; 

• Fossil Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend slowly toward desired condition in 

general, but trend away from desired condition on recreations areas.

Soil condition and productivity in Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous would remain good. About 

69 percent of this riparian forest type has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil 

conditions. In these areas, soil is functioning properly. About 31 percent of this riparian forest 

type has impaired soil conditions. Under the management direction in this alternative, overall soil 

condition and productivity would remain static relative to desired conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

181

There is a moderate likelihood that Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous would be a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species under this alternative, except it would have a high likelihood in 

the portions of the Beaver Creek 5th code HUC and Oak Creek 5th code HUC where recreation 

use is high. These likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with 

the value for riparian function condition. Riparian functional condition was used instead of soil 

quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or 

disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 28 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Montane Willow Riparian Forest is classified overall as 

good. This means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size of habitat 

areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative 

to desired conditions. Under the plan direction in alternative A, riparian functional condition is 

expected to have a static trend or slowly trend toward the desired condition of properly 

functioning, resilient riparian areas. There is a localized exception to the condition and trend in 

the portions of East Clear Creek and its tributaries and the Fern Mountain Botanical Area, which 

would be in fair condition and trending toward desired conditions. 

Soil condition and productivity in Montane Willow would remain good. Under the management 

direction in this alternative, overall soil quality would remain static relative to desired conditions. 

There is a moderate likelihood that Montane Willow would be a limiting factor to the viability of 

the associated species under this alternative, except it would have a high likelihood in the portions 

of East Clear Creek and its tributaries in the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC and in the Fern 

Mountain Botanical Area. These likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for riparian function condition. Riparian functional condition was used 

instead of soil quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster than soil to 

treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives. 

The management effect for all three riparian forests is a 3 under alternative A, which means the 

plan components maintain or improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences 

in the plan area. However, alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of 

riparian forests and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives. 

Alternative A would maintain or improve riparian forests 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 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 areas (1987 Plan, page 177). Aggressive 

fire suppression may be used to prevent resource damage utilizing methods that minimize longterm 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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

182

Much of the plan language for riparian forests in alternative A is outdated and does not include 

current science about vegetative condition and natural disturbances. This alternative has less 

potential for improvement to riparian functional condition compared to the other alternatives 

primarily because alternative A does not distinguish between the various riparian areas that occur 

on the forest and lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, and function. 

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 areas (1987 

Plan, page 206-11). 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). 

Alternative A does not allow precommercial thinning or piling thinning slash in riparian areas, 

which may preclude restoration of riparian forest habitat if conditions have 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.

Mineral material excavation within the riparian zone is permissible in this alternative after 

environmental analysis and authorized mineral activities will maintain or improve riparian 

conditions (1987 Plan, page 177). This is potentially positive for riparian habitat and 

streamcourses; however, the likelihood of having beneficial mineral activities within a riparian 

zone is low, due to the nature of mineral activities. 

Uncharacteristic fire can result in uncharacteristic flooding or wildfire in non-fire-adapted 

ecosystems like riparian forests. The current plan reduces the threats of uncharacteristic fire on 

departed vegetation types (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5, 65-11, 206-11, 206-75, 206-

77). Reducing threats of uncharacteristic fire would reduce the risk of high soil burn severity that 

could otherwise result in accelerated soil erosion, loss of protective vegetative ground cover and 

tree and herbaceous species including riparian areas. Reducing the threat of uncharacteristic fire 

would also indirectly reduce the threat of uncharacteristic flooding. The 1987 plan supports the 

use of wildfire managed for resource objectives (1987 Plan, pages 10, 65-4, 94, 111, 112, 137, 

144, 147, 155, 157); however, it is more difficult to implement (1987 Plan, pages 94, 112, 137, 

144, 147, 155, 157) than in alternative B (modified). Although language in the 1987 plan allows 

the use of the wildfire resource benefit fire tool and protects long-term soil productivity, 

watershed function, water quality and riparian function, the plan language in the other alternatives 

has broader applicability and is easier to implement. However, this language is not as strategic 

and does not have as much forestwide applicability as in alternative B (modified). 

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 (1987 

Plan, pages 105; 115-4; 187-1; 196-2; 206-9 to 206-11; 206-15; 206-22; 206-39; 206-62 to 206-

64; 206-66; 206-68; 206-78 to 206-79). All of these goals and guidelines are similar in that they 

set general expectations that recreation impacts should not destabilize ecosystems, and 

specifically, that certain activities known to result in resource-recreation conflicts should be 

limited in a way that reduces their footprint or that they are not allowed in these areas. Overall, 

this direction addresses dispersed recreation’s impact to riparian areas in some areas where there 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

183

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

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

such as the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River. 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. 

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, which could include non-native plant species (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 that 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). 

There are 45 acres (less than 1 percent) of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian in the proposed 

West Clear Creek Research Natural Area. This proposed research natural area is in a different 

location than the proposed West Clear Creek Research Natural Area in alternative B (modified), 

and is close to a relatively high use recreation area. Recreationists seeking to escape the 

overcrowding in the Fossil Creek Area or seeking a more remote experience may use this area 

and compact soil, increase erosion, and damage vegetation in high use areas. Nonetheless, 

existing plan language would protect watershed condition and maintain natural ecological 

conditions and impose use restrictions to keep this area in natural and unmodified conditions. If 

designated, the research natural area would be closed to off-road driving and there would be no 

harvest of timber products including firewood (1987 Plan, page 194). This area would also be 

protected by plan language that would limit recreation use depending on carrying capacity, and 

Allotment Management Plans would have provisions to protect the ecological condition of the 

special area (1987 Plan, page 195). Special use authorizations that would or could adversely 

affect or change the character of the area would not be allowed and fire suppression tactics that 

minimize damage to the research natural area s and other special areas would be used (1987 Plan, 

page 196). 

Cottonwood Willow is found in the Verde Valley Botanical Area and Montane Willow occurs in 

the Fern Mountain Botanical Area, which contains Bebb’s willow and Blumer’s dock. Plan 

direction for botanical areas is found in Management Area 17 in which the management emphasis 

directs the forest to maintain the existing conditions and natural processes of the area while 

prohibiting activities such as cross-country travel (1987 Plan, page 194). This provides an 

additional layer of protection for this riparian forest type as well as associated species and their 

habitats. Off-road travel in botanical areas is not allowed in any alternative (1987 Plan, page 194; 

SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility corridors would also avoid botanical 

areas (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would result in less disturbance to soil and 

plants, in less erosion and soil compaction, and eliminate habitat damage from these activities.

This is a negligible effect because less than 1 percent of Montane Willow is in botanical areas.

The 1987 plan has management emphasis for Griffith’s Spring Environmental Study Area that 

would be beneficial for Montane Willow Riparian Forest (1987 Plan, page 198). The management 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

184

emphasis includes continuing improvements to this area that would protect stream banks, riparian 

vegetation, and aquatic wildlife species. Road closure and trail relocation and construction would 

mitigate the effects of recreation, roads, and trails. These effects include vegetation loss, damage 

to streambanks, soil compaction, and excessive water turbidity. Fence installation would prevent 

browsing damage to willows from elk and deer. Guidelines for environmental study areas would 

also be protective of Montane Willow Riparian Forest within these areas. Guidelines would 

preclude livestock grazing and new special-use authorizations or amendments that would or could 

adversely affect or change the character of the environmental study area. Fencing would be used 

as needed to control dispersed recreation (1987 Plan, pages 198 and 199). 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 26 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is classified as good. 

This means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, 

or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative to 

desired conditions. Under the plan direction in this alternative, riparian functional condition is 

expected to slowly trend toward the desired condition of properly functioning, resilient riparian 

areas. Soil condition and productivity in Cottonwood Willow would remain poor. Under the 

management direction in this alternative, overall soil condition and productivity would trend 

slowly toward desired conditions in most areas, including litter, vegetation composition, and 

understory composition. 

Under alternative B (modified), Cottonwood Willow has a moderate likelihood of being a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by 

combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for riparian function condition. 

Riparian functional condition was used instead of soil quality, because riparian function is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 27 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest is classified 

as good. This means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size of 

habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced

relative to desired conditions. Under the plan direction in this alternative, riparian functional 

condition is expected to trend toward the desired condition of properly functioning, resilient 

riparian areas. There are several localized exceptions to the condition and trend in areas that are 

accessible to high recreation use that has resulted in soil compaction and vegetation damage. 

These areas are:

• Beaver Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend toward desired condition in general. 

Condition fair, trend toward desired condition in high recreation use areas; 

• Oak Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend toward desired condition; 

• West Clear Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend slowly toward desired condition; 

• Fossil Creek 5th code HUC: Condition good, trend toward desired condition. 

Soil condition and productivity in Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous would remain poor. About 

69 percent of this riparian forest type has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil 

conditions. In these areas, soil is functioning properly. About 31 percent of this riparian forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

185

type has impaired soil conditions. Under the management direction in this alternative, overall soil 

condition and productivity would trend slowly toward desired conditions in most areas, including 

litter, vegetation composition, and understory composition. 

Under alternative B (modified), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous has a moderate likelihood of being a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species based on abundance and riparian 

functional condition, except it would have a high likelihood in the portions of the Beaver Creek 

5th code HUC where recreation use is high (table 27). This likelihood was derived by combining 

the value for habitat abundance with the value for riparian function condition. Riparian functional 

condition was used instead of soil quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster 

than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 28 shows 

that the riparian functional condition of Montane Willow Riparian Forest is classified as good. 

This means it has a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, 

or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative to 

desired conditions. Under the plan direction in this alternative, riparian functional condition is 

expected to have a static trend or slowly trend toward the desired condition of properly 

functioning, resilient riparian areas. 

East Clear Creek and its tributaries in the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC would improve faster 

than in alternative A. This portion of Montane Willow Riparian Forest would be in good 

condition and trend toward desired conditions.

Soil condition and productivity in Montane Willow would remain good and improve faster than in 

alternative A. Soil would slowly trend toward desired conditions. 

Under alternative B (modified), Montane Willow has a moderate likelihood of being a limiting 

factor to the viability of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the 

value for habitat abundance with the value for riparian function condition. Riparian functional 

condition was used instead of soil quality, because riparian function is assumed to respond faster 

than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between 

alternatives.

The management effect for all three riparian forests is a 2 under alternative B (modified), which 

means that the plan components in maintain or improve protection and management for most 

habitat occurrences in the plan area. This rating is primarily because there are updated desired 

conditions and guidelines that support the composition, structure, and function of riparian forests, 

connectivity between uplands and aquatic and riparian areas, and the maintenance of habitat for 

species (FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 2, 3, 5; FW-Rip-All-G-2, 3; FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 6; FW-RipRipType-G-1, 2, 3; FW-WFP-DC-6). 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). 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). This provides clearer and more 

consistent direction for managers.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

186

Alternative B (modified) has plan language to avoid or reduce soil compaction or disturbance and 

excessive vegetation use from domestic livestock in riparian areas. For example, in the livestock 

grazing section, grazing should be managed to meet or move toward desired conditions for other 

forest resources. Structural range improvements should be built and utilized in a manner 

consistent with desired conditions for riparian areas and other sensitive resources. See FW-GrazG-2, 4, 5. In addition, where permitted livestock has access to riparian areas, forage use should 

maintain those species, allow for plant regeneration, and lead to diverse age classes of woody 

riparian species where the potential exists. This guideline does not apply to fine-scale activities or 

facilities that are used to reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas at a larger scale, such as 

intermittent livestock crossing locations and water gaps. See FW-Graz-G-7. Soil productivity, soil 

condition, and vegetation quality and abundance within the area affected by these fine-scale 

structures or activities would be of lower quality and abundance compared to areas outside these 

areas.

A desired condition in Land Adjustments promotes the retention of open space values including 

those related to riparian character. Guidelines in Land Adjustments promote considering areas 

that contain or influence wetlands, riparian areas, or other water-related features, and considering 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species when acquiring land (FW- LndAdj-DC1, G-1). 

A guideline in Special Uses would protect 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). 

Plan components in other sections of the plan would also maintain and promote the sustainability 

of riparian habitat. For example, permanent and temporary road construction and relocation 

should occur outside of streamcourses and aquatic management zones except where crossing is 

required (FW-RdsFac-G-5). Plan components in the Pine Belt and Oak Creek Management Areas 

promote protection of riparian habitat in Pumphouse Wash and along Oak Creek (MA-PineBeltDC-4; MA-OakCrk-DC-5; MA-OakCrk-G-5). A management approach in the Roads and 

Facilities section reminds managers that riparian areas that are classified as impaired or nonattaining due to sedimentation or alterations to hydrology related to the road would be a 

prioritizing factor in naturalization of decommissioned and unauthorized roads. 

In addition to the acres within designated wilderness, there are 21 acres of Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous in the Davey’s Recommended Wilderness Area. There would be 2,094 acres (or about 

35 percent) of Mixed Broadleaf in either designated or recommended wilderness. There are no 

acres of Montane Willow or Cottonwood Willow in recommended wilderness in alternative B 

(modified).

Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized 

vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5; SARWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values 

would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and nonmechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). 

Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from 

motorized or mechanized uses, which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by 

Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

187

Forest Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 

11). However, limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make 

them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether 

restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result 

in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs 

and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the 

trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas 

more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or 

establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire 

regime, and biodiversity. 

There are 18 acres of Mixed Broadleaf in the proposed West Clear Creek Research Natural Area,

which is in a different location in West Clear Creek than in alternative A. Direction for designated 

botanical areas and for designated and proposed research natural areas in this alternative would 

support habitat for the associated species by promoting and protecting properly functioning 

ecosystems and designing activities and uses to maintain or move toward desired conditions and 

minimize impacts to ecosystems (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1, 2, 5; SA-RNA-BotGeo-G-1, 3, 4, 5, 

and 7). Although protective, this language would have a negligible effect on Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian due to the small amount of acres. Wilderness direction would prevail in the 

proposed West Clear Creek Research Natural Area. 

There are 11 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian in the proposed Cottonwood Basin 

Botanical Area. Direction for designated botanical areas in this alternative would support riparian 

forest habitat for the associated species by promoting properly functioning ecosystems that are 

not negatively impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SARNABotGeo-G-1, 3, 4, 5). Habitat and properly functioning ecosystems would also be 

maintained in localized areas because of recreation and transportation suitability 

recommendations in chapter 4 of the revised plan. These recommendations state that new 

motorized areas, permanent roads, temporary roads, and motorized travel are not suitable in 

botanical and geological areas. 

Habitat and properly functioning ecosystems would also be maintained in localized areas because 

of recreation and transportation suitability recommendations (chapter 4 of the revised plan). 

These recommendations state that new motorized areas, permanent roads, temporary roads, and 

motorized travel are not suitable in designated and recommended wilderness areas and botanical 

and geological areas. This adds to the protections that are associated with these special areas from 

ground-disturbing activities.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except 13 wildernesses are 

recommended instead of 3. 

In addition to the 113 acres of Cottonwood Willow in designated wilderness, there are 233 acres 

in recommended wilderness. The recommended wilderness acres are distributed among two

recommended wildernesses: Cimarron-Boulder (22 acres) and Hackberry (211 acres). There 

would be about 26 percent of the ERU in either designated or recommended wilderness. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

188

For Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, in addition to the 2,073 acres of designated wilderness, there are 

662 acres in recommended wilderness: Black Mountain (183 acres), Cedar Bench (11 acres), 

Cimarron-Boulder (201 acres), Davey’s (21 acres), Hackberry (238 acres), and Walker Mountain 

(7 acres). There would be about 46 percent of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest in 

either designated or recommended wilderness. 

In addition to the 451 acres of Montane Willow in designated wilderness, there are 438 acres in 

recommended wilderness: Barbershop (170 acres), Deadwood Draw (9 acres), and East Clear 

Creek (259 acres). There would be about 25 percent of Montane Willow Riparian Forest in either 

designated or recommended wilderness.

The effects are similar, but the scale of effect is slightly larger than in alternative B (modified). 

Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized 

vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SARWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values 

would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and nonmechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). 

Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from 

motorized or mechanized uses which could be beneficial to associated species. If designated by 

Congress, the wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy and Forest 

Plan direction (SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-O-1, 2; SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; SA-Wild-G-1 to 11). 

However, limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make 

them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether 

restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result 

in the establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend 

toward desired conditions. 

Habitat and properly functioning ecosystems would also be maintained in localized areas because 

of recreation and transportation suitability recommendations. Like alternative B (modified), these 

recommendations for alternative C state that new motorized areas, permanent roads, temporary 

roads, and motorized travel are not suitable in designated and recommended wilderness areas and 

botanical and geological areas. This affects more acres than in alternative B (modified) because 

there are more acres of recommended wilderness under alternative C.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except it only proposes the 

Cottonwood Basin Geological Area. The geological area does not overlap any riparian forest. The 

area covered by the Cottonwood Basin Botanical Area in alternative B (modified) would be 

managed under the forestwide and management area direction applicable to the area in alternative 

D. Alternative D includes no recommended wilderness areas. The recommended wilderness areas 

of alternative B (modified) would be managed under the forestwide and management area 

direction applicable to the area in alternative D.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

189

Wetlands

Affected Environment 

Amount

Wetlands cover approximately 11,654 acres within the administrative boundary of the Coconino 

NF. About 10,121 acres (87 percent) are managed by the forest. The remaining 13 percent is in 

county and private ownership. 

Table 29 summarizes the information used to estimate the likelihood that wetlands would be a 

limiting factor to the associated species. The abundance is categorized as rare because, at 

10,121 acres, it occupies about 0.5 percent of the forest. Habitats classified as rare generally have 

less than 100 occurrences, or patches of the habitat cover less than 1 percent of the forest. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Wetlands include bodies of water such as wetlands and natural lakes and their associated 

vegetation composition and structure. Wetlands may be saturated with water year-round or 

seasonally. The dominant vegetation is hydrophytes, or “water-loving” plants (plants adapted to 

living in an aquatic environment). Neither wetlands nor riparian forest types are fire-adapted, but 

wetlands are occasionally burned to maintain open water for waterfowl. The primary natural 

disturbance is changing water levels, including flooding (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 29 shows 

that the wetland functional condition for wetlands is generally classified as good when total acres 

are considered and fair when evaluated based on the number of wetlands. This means that based 

on total acres, wetlands have a low departure from reference conditions and the number, size of 

habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced 

relative to reference conditions. This is primarily because protection and restoration has been 

focused on the larger wetlands or those with the most permanent or deepest water (semipermanent or seasonal wetlands). 

Based on the number of wetlands, wetlands have a moderate departure from reference conditions 

and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is 

somewhat reduced relative to reference conditions. The trend is toward reference condition. This 

is a reflection of protection and restoration not being focused on smaller wetlands or those with 

shallow or less permanent water (ephemeral and temporary wetlands).

Wetland condition and trend can vary in localized areas depending on degree of protection from 

disturbance. Some wetlands are fenced from livestock and wildlife and have few-human related 

impacts. Others are fenced but have a water gap that allows livestock or wildlife access to water 

and most human-related impacts may have been addressed. Still other wetlands may not be 

fenced, or may exclude only livestock but not wildlife, and few to no human-related impacts have 

been addressed. Condition can also be influenced by site-specific factors such as adjusting the 

length, timing, and intensity of livestock grazing. 

Soil condition and productivity are poor with a static trend relative to reference conditions. About 

11 percent of this riparian forest type has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil 

conditions. In these areas, soil is functioning properly. About 89 percent of this riparian forest 

type has impaired soil conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

190

There is a moderate likelihood that wetland habitat could be limiting to the associated species

based on the total number of acres of wetlands and a high likelihood based on the number of 

wetlands. The likelihoods that habitat would be limiting to the associated species were derived by 

combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. Vegetation 

quality was used instead of soil quality, because vegetation is assumed to respond faster than soil 

to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect differences between alternatives.

Table 29 compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative 

expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat quality and 

is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 

1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating the more effective the alternative is for 

maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.

There are 15 acres of wetlands in the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area.

Table 29. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Wetlands

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D

Associated 

Species

Abundance Rare Rare Chiricahua leopard 

Qualitywetland 

functional 

condition

By acreage: 

Good, 

trending 

toward

By number of 

wetlands: 

Fair, trending 

toward

By acres: good, 

trending toward

By number of 

wetlands: Fair, 

trending toward

Good, toward frog, Northern 

Mexican 

gartersnake, lowland 

leopard frog, 

northern leopard 

frog, bald eagle, 

Arizona toad, 

Arizona 

sneezeweed. 

Quality-Soil Poor, static Poor, static Poor, toward Bollander’s quillwort, 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

By acreage: 

Moderate

By number of 

wetlands: 

High

By acreage: 

Moderate

By number of 

wetlands: High

Moderate considering 

wetland functional 

condition

High considering the 

number of wetlands

Oak Creek triteleia, 

Pond lily

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve protection 

and management 

for some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Risk Factors

Risk factors include excessive wildlife herbivory, excessive livestock grazing, invasive species, 

and dispersed recreation in localized areas. High levels of dispersed recreation in easily accessed 

and localized areas may cause ground disturbance, soil compaction, and vegetation removal, and 

could lead to accelerated erosion and sedimentation into connected waters. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

191

Excessive herbivory by wildlife and domestic livestock can cause soil compaction and can 

change the structure and composition of vegetation to the extent it influences ecosystem 

processes. Livestock grazing is managed under permit. Most of the wetlands, and their associated 

earthen stock tanks or other infrastructure, are associated with water rights for livestock and 

wildlife. Wildlife management is the responsibility of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

The introduction, presence, and spread of invasive animal species such as bullfrogs and crayfish, 

and non-native or invasive fish can have significant impacts because they eat, compete with, and 

can hybridize with native species. Some species consume aquatic vegetation, changing the 

composition, structure, and function of the aquatic environment. Other invasive species, such as 

aquatic zebra mussels, would pose a significant threat to species and ecosystems if they became 

established on the forest. 

Associated Species

See associated species in table 29. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). 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 would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

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; 

FW-WFP-O-4; FW-Rip-All-G-3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2; FW-Water-G-4; FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8. 

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, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

192

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). 

For all alternatives, the contribution of sediment to water quality resulting from vegetation 

management, trail maintenance, and construction and from human and livestock disturbances to 

riparian areas is expected to be similar because the best management practices used for 

implementation of these activities are the same across alternatives. Best management practices 

are expected to reduce or mitigate sedimentation. 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, 3). Implementation of this direction would avoid or limit grounddisturbing activities that could cause loss of protective vegetative ground cover or cause increased 

sedimentation. 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.

Thinning of dense forest canopies results in decreased evapotranspiration and short-term increase 

in water yield to connected streams, springs, and wetlands (USDA Forest Service 1974). All 

alternatives would thin ponderosa pine forests at about the same rate (FW-TerrERU-PP-O-1, 2, 

3). Thinning would result in short-term improvement of riparian structure, composition and 

function due to the decrease in evapotranspiration and a corresponding increase in water yield. 

This would be specific to wetlands that are connected to ponderosa pine forests. 

Off-road travel in the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area is not allowed in any alternative (1987 Plan, 

page 194; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5; SA-RNABotGeo-G-1). New utility corridors would also avoid 

the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area (1987 Plan, page 79; FW-SpecUse-G-10). This would result in 

less disturbance to soil and plants, in less erosion and soil compaction, and eliminate habitat 

damage from these activities. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 29 shows 

that wetland functional condition is generally classified as good when total acres are considered 

and fair when number of wetlands are considered. This means that, based on total acres, wetlands 

have a low departure from reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness 

in distribution across the landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative to reference 

conditions. Based on the number of wetlands, wetlands have a moderate departure from reference 

conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape 

is somewhat reduced relative to reference conditions. Under the plan direction in alternative A, 

wetland functional condition is expected to have a trend toward desired conditions. 

Soil condition and productivity would remain poor. About 11 percent of this riparian forest type 

has satisfactory or satisfactory but inherently unstable soil conditions. In these areas, soil is 

functioning properly. About 89 percent of this riparian forest type has impaired soil conditions. 

Under the management direction in this alternative, overall soil condition and productivity would 

remain static relative to desired conditions.

There is a moderate likelihood that wetlands would be limiting to the associated species based on 

acreage, and a high likelihood that it would be limiting based on number of wetlands. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for wetland 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

193

functional condition. Wetland functional condition was used instead of soil quality, because 

wetland function is assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, 

would better reflect differences between alternatives.

The management effect is a 3 under alternative A, which means the plan components maintain or 

improve protection and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area, and thus, 

contribute less to the viability of associated species than the other alternative. However, 

alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of wetlands and the viability 

of the associated species than the other alternatives.

Alternative A would maintain or improve wetlands because it has a focus on riparian recovery, 

preventing damage to riparian vegetation, streambanks, 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 

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, 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 

less potential for improvement to wetland 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. 

Wetlands occur in the Mogollon Rim Botanical Area. Plan direction for botanical areas is found 

in Management Area 17. The management emphasis directs the forest to maintain the existing 

conditions and natural processes of the area, while prohibiting activities such as cross-country 

travel (1987 Plan, page 194). This provides an additional layer of protection for wetlands and 

other habitats that overlap these special areas.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 29 shows 

that wetland functional condition is generally classified as good when either the total acres or the 

number of wetlands are considered. This means that wetlands have a low departure from 

reference conditions and the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the 

landscape is similar or only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. Under the plan 

direction in alternative B (modified), wetland functional condition is expected to have a trend 

toward desired conditions. 

Soil condition and productivity would remain poor, but trend toward desired conditions under the 

management direction in this alternative. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

194

Under alternative B (modified), wetlands have a moderate likelihood of being a limiting factor to 

the viability of the associated species, based on abundance and riparian functional condition 

(table 29). This is true regardless of whether acreage and number of wetlands are considered. 

Wetland functional condition was used instead of soil quality, because wetland function is 

assumed to respond faster than soil to treatments or disturbances, and thus, would better reflect 

differences between alternatives. 

The management effect rating is classified as 2, which means plan components maintain or 

improve protection and management for most habitat 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 contrast to alternative A, alternative B (modified) provides clearer direction for managers by 

having specific plan components that describe the function, structure, and composition of 

wetlands (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2). Wetland riparian condition and soil quality would improve 

with the implementation of plan objectives that would restore 5 to 10 wetlands during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1). 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) (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). 

Direction for designated botanical areas in this alternative would support wetland habitat for the 

associated species by promoting properly functioning ecosystems that are not negatively 

impacted from human activities or permitted uses (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5, and SA-RNABotGeoG-1, 3, 4, 5). Habitat and properly functioning ecosystems would also be maintained in localized 

areas because of recreation and transportation suitability recommendations in chapter 4 of the 

revised plan. These recommendations state that new motorized areas, permanent roads, temporary 

roads, and motorized travel are not suitable in botanical and geological areas. 

Alternative B (modified) has plan language to avoid or reduce soil compaction or disturbance and 

excessive vegetation use from domestic livestock in riparian areas. For example, in the livestock 

grazing section, grazing should be managed to meet or move toward desired conditions for other 

forest resources. Structural range improvements should be built and utilized in a manner 

consistent with desired conditions for riparian areas and other sensitive resources. See FW-GrazG-2, 4, 5. In addition, where permitted livestock has access to riparian areas, forage use should 

maintain those species, allow for plant regeneration and lead to diverse age classes of woody 

riparian species where the potential exists. This guideline does not apply to fine-scale activities or 

facilities that are used to reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas at a larger scale, such as 

intermittent livestock crossing locations and water gaps. See FW-Graz-G-7. Soil productivity, soil 

condition, and vegetation quality and abundance within the area affected by these fine-scale 

structures or activities would be of lower quality and abundance compared to areas outside these 

areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

195

A desired condition in Land Adjustments promotes the retention of open space values including 

those related to riparian/wetland character. Guidelines in Land Adjustments promote considering 

areas that contain or influences wetlands, riparian areas, or other water-related features and 

considering habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species when acquiring land 

(FW-LndAdj-DC-1,G-1). 

A guideline in Special Uses would protect 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). 

Plan components in other sections of the plan would also maintain and promote the sustainability 

of wetlands. For example, permanent and temporary road construction and relocation should 

avoid wetlands (FW-RdsFac-G-5). Desired conditions in the Pine Belt, Anderson Mesa, and Long 

Valley Management Areas promote functioning wetlands that provide nesting and migratory 

habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds (MA-PineBelt-DC-1, MA-AMesa-DC-4, MA-LongV-DC6). A management approach in the Roads and Facilities section reminds managers that wetlands 

that are classified as impaired or non-attaining due to sedimentation or alterations to hydrology 

related to the road would be a prioritizing factor in naturalization of decommissioned and 

unauthorized roads. 

There are no acres of Wetlands in recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified). 

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there are 3 acres of 

wetlands in recommended wilderness in alternative C. These acres are in the Barbershop 

recommended wilderness area, and represent about 0.03 percent of wetland acres on the forest. 

Plan language would emphasize primitive and undeveloped wilderness characteristics and 

ecological systems, non-motorized activities, limited motorized use, and be generally protective 

of wetlands; however, this would be a negligible effect at the landscape level due to the small 

amount of acres. See FW-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6, G-3, 5. 

The effects to wetlands under alternative C are the same as alternative B (modified), except there 

is additional management direction for wetlands in the Anderson Mesa, Blue Ridge, and East 

Clear Creek Management Areas in addition to that found in the revised plan. This additional 

management direction is beneficial because it 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-AMesa-DC-1, 3, 10,12, G-1, 2, 3; BlueRidge-DC-1, 3, 10, G-1, 2, 3; MAEastClr-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

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

196

Springs

Affected Environment 

Springs occur where groundwater is forced to the surface, offering sufficient moisture to support 

hydrophytic or riparian vegetation. In some cases, springs drain into karst topography or cave 

ecosystems. About 10 different spring types occur on the forest. They are classified by how they 

emerge from the ground. 

Amount

There are over 340 springs within the forest boundary. Although many existing springs are 

located where they occurred historically, some springs are no longer present on the landscape. 

This could be due to changing conditions in their watershed or aquifer or geological factors such 

as earthquakes. Their abundance is considered rare. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

Springs are located primarily in the following 5th code watersheds: Middle Little Colorado River, 

Canyon Diablo, Lower Little Colorado River, Upper Verde River, and Lower Verde River. 

Water flow can vary within and between years. Water chemistry can be unique. Isolation of 

springs and the amount of solar radiation they receive are associated with the number of endemic 

species (Stevens and Meretsky 2013). 

In reference conditions, springs were not interrupted by roads, dams, culverts, diversions or other 

structures. They were connected to the water table and uplands. Water was not polluted and water 

chemistry was unaltered by humans. Invasive or non-native plant and animal species were absent. 

Spring plants and wildlife consisted of species distributed in natural patterns of abundance and 

diversity within the capacity of the spring. Primary natural disturbances include a range of 

temperature and precipitation patterns that reflect the inherent variability in climate and weather.

Earthquakes or other geological disturbances changed spring flow or conditions in localized 

areas. Isolated springs remained isolated and functioned as paleorefugia. Paleorefugia are longterm stable habitats in which natural selection, isolation, and adaptation (sometimes to extreme 

environmental conditions) result in restricted or endemic species, such as snails, plants, and 

invertebrates (Stevens and Meretsky 2008). 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 30 shows 

that springs that are assumed accessible, highly modified with stock tanks or pipelines or other 

infrastructure, and unfenced or unprotected are classified as poor. They are highly departed from 

reference conditions and classified as either nonfunctioning or functioning-at-risk. Undeveloped 

springs that are fenced and/or are not accessible are classified as good. They are assumed to have 

a low departure from reference conditions; to be trending toward reference conditions; to be in 

functional condition; and to have the number, size of habitat areas, or evenness in distribution 

across the landscape that is similar or only slightly reduced relative to reference conditions. 

Springs that have characteristics that lie between springs classified as poor and good are 

considered to be in fair condition with a slow trend toward reference conditions. They are 

classified as functioning-at-risk, i.e., they are in functional condition but an existing soil, water, or 

vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

Table 30 compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative 

expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat quality and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

197

is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 

1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the alternative is for 

maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Table 30. Summary of coarse filter analysis for Springs

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D

Associated 

Species

Abundance Rare Rare Chiricahua leopard

Quality Poor for 

developed, 

accessible, 

unprotected

springs/away;

Good for

undeveloped 

springs that are

protected or have

poor 

access/toward;

Fair for springs 

between High 

and Low/

Slowly toward

Poor, away for 

developed, 

accessible, 

unprotected springs

Good, toward for 

undeveloped 

springs that are 

fenced, protected, 

inaccessible

Fair, slowly toward 

for springs between 

poor and good

Poor, away for 

developed, 

accessible, 

unprotected springs

Good, toward for 

undeveloped springs 

that are fenced, 

protected, 

inaccessible

Fair, slowly toward for 

springs between poor 

and good

frog, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, 

Gila topminnow, 

lowland leopard 

frog, northern 

leopard frog, a 

caddisfly 

(Lepidostoma 

knulli), a mayfly 

(Moribaetis 

mimbresaurus), 

Balmorhea saddlecase caddisfly, 

California floater, 

Fossil springsnail, 

Page springsnail, 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High for poor and 

fair condition, 

Moderate for 

good condition

High for poor 

quality, Moderate for 

fair quality, or Low

for good quality

High for poor quality, 

Moderate for fair 

quality, or Low for 

good quality

Alcove bog orchid, 

Arizona 

sneezeweed,Bebb’s 

willow, Blumer’s 

Management 

effect

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.

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.

dock, Cochise 

sedge, Mogollon 

thistle, Arizona toad,

Alberta arctic, 

Arizona snaketail, 

Persephone’s 

darner, Redrock 

stonefly, Oak Creek 

triteleia

Risk Factors

Threats include excessive wildlife herbivory, dispersed recreation, groundwater pumping, spring 

development, and excessive livestock grazing in localized areas. Groundwater pumping can lower 

the water table and reduce spring flow; however, it is outside of Forest Service authority to 

control. Springs are also threatened by fire exclusion in fire-adapted ERUs in their associated 

watersheds. Fire exclusion has altered the structure in forest and woodland ERUs such that they 

are more vulnerable to uncharacteristic fire. Precipitation following an uncharacteristic fire can 

result in accelerated erosion and sedimentation into spring ecosystems, negatively impacting 

spring function and species composition. Fire exclusion can also alter groundwater recharge of 

the perched aquifers associated with some springs. It does this because excluding natural fires 

facilitates dense trees and more tree canopy that can intercept infiltration of precipitation into 

groundwater, which replenishes perched aquifers. Invasive or non-native plant and/or animal 

species are a threat in localized areas.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

198

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 30. 

Environmental Consequences

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 address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.

All alternatives have language to meet Arizona water quality standards (1987 Plan, page 28; FWWater-DC-7, FW-Water-G-5). 

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 

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-Spr-G-3 4; FW-Rip-Spr-O-1; FW-Rip-All-G-3; FWRip-Strm-G-2; FW-Water-G-4. 

Designated wildernesses occur in all alternatives. Designated wilderness areas would be managed 

according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource 

values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 

112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits 

most active vegetation management because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. 

Motorized and mechanized access can kill or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil 

compaction and soil loss, and can introduce non-native species which compete with native plants 

for resources. This can negatively affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or 

populations. Ground-disturbing activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key 

points of interest at which invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

199

could occur depending on the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere 

would be beneficial by reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized 

or mechanized use. However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could 

preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or 

make them harder to do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire 

return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or 

establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward

desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in 

the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive 

or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 30 shows 

that under alternative A, habitat quality for springs ranges from poor to good depending on the 

degree of spring development, protection, and accessibility. Trends range from away from desired 

conditions for springs in poor condition; toward desired conditions for springs in good condition; 

and slowly toward desired conditions for springs in fair condition. Likelihoods that springs would 

be limiting to the viability of the associated species range from moderate to high (table 30). These

likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the values for

quality. Springs classified as being in poor or fair condition would have a high likelihood and 

springs classified as being in good condition would have a moderate likelihood. 

Management effect is considered a 4, which means there could be a decline in habitat quality as a 

result of management or lack of management that result from plan components. Plan language for 

springs is mainly found in management area 12, Riparian and Open Water, which includes 

riparian forests, wetlands, marshes, ponds, and springs. Much of the language in alternative A is 

outdated and does not include current science about riparian condition, processes, and natural 

disturbances. This alternative has less potential for improvement to the functional condition of 

springs compared to the other alternatives, primarily because alternative A does not distinguish 

between the various riparian areas that occur on the forest and lacks plan components relative to 

composition, structure, and function.

Alternative A does contain beneficial plan components that would maintain or improve riparian in 

general, but it has a strong focus on riparian forests and streams. Alternative A emphasizes

riparian recovery; preventing damage to riparian vegetation, streambanks, 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 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 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, 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 under alternative A provide limited 

guidance for non-native aquatic species control, but not forestwide. Control of the impacts of 

non-native plant and animal species and discouraging the introduction of new non-natives is 

advocated in the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Area and Sedona/Oak Creek Area (1987 Plan, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

200

pages 206-9, 206-72). Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of 

streamcourses on the forest and the viability of the associated species than the other alternatives. 

Alternative A lacks plan components that address connectivity between riparian areas and 

uplands, between riparian and aquatic habitats and groundwater, and along streams. These 

connections are essential for properly functioning spring ecosystems. Alternative A plan language 

lacks guidance on protecting and maintaining groundwater quality and aquifer levels, but does 

provide focus on keeping an inventory of groundwater and evaluating management practices 

(1987 Plan, page 73). Substantial groundwater drawdown has occurred on non-NFS land due to 

excessive well pumping, but this is outside the control and authority of the forest. Consequently, 

the trend for groundwater (and the springs that depend on it) is away from desired conditions on 

non-forest administered lands and static on forest lands for alternative A.

Uncharacteristic fire can result in uncharacteristic flooding, sedimentation, or wildfire in non-fireadapted ecosystems like springs. The current plan reduces the threats of uncharacteristic fire on 

departed vegetation types (1987 Plan, pages 65-2, 65-3, 65-4, 65-5, 65-11, 206-11, 206-75, and 

206-77). Reducing threats of uncharacteristic fire in fire-dependent ecosystems would reduce the 

risk of high soil burn severity that could otherwise result in accelerated soil erosion, loss of 

protective vegetative ground cover and tree and herbaceous species including in riparian areas. 

Reducing the threat of uncharacteristic fire would also indirectly reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic flooding. 

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in fire-adapted 

ecosystems in alternative A, but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource 

objectives in the wildland-urban interface (1987 Plan, pages 92, 155, 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 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 this ERU. This is particularly 

problematic where the landownership pattern is intermixed with different ownerships. Indirect 

negative consequences to springs could be decreased water infiltration to the aquifers that support 

springs due to increased transpiration by increased density of shrubs and trees; decreased water 

infiltration because tree canopies intercept snow and it could evaporate before it has a chance to 

reach the ground and infiltrate into the soil; or increased likelihood of accelerated erosion or 

sedimentation from uncharacteristic fire. 

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 (1987 

Plan, pages 105, 115-4; 187-1, 196-2, 206-9 to 206-11, 206-15, 206-22, 206-39, 206-62 to 206-

64, 206-66, 206-68, 206-78 to 206-79). All of these goals and guidelines are similar in that they 

set general expectations that recreation impacts should not destabilize ecosystems, and 

specifically, that certain activities known to result in resource-recreation conflicts should be 

limited in a way that reduces their footprint or that they are not allowed in these areas. Overall, 

this direction addresses dispersed recreation’s impact to riparian areas in some 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 increases in recreation that are unexpected, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

201

such as the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River. 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. 

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, which could include non-native plant species that could compete with 

native spring vegetation or alter spring hydrology (1987 Plan, pages 69, 176, and 174). It also 

allows salting to improve livestock distribution. Salting could be used in spring areas to improve 

livestock management by concentrating cattle in certain areas, a practice which could be 

detrimental to associated species and their habitat, but salting could also 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). 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 30 shows 

that under alternative B (modified), habitat quality for springs ranges from poor to good 

depending on the degree of spring development, protection, and accessibility. Trends range from 

away from desired conditions for springs in poor condition; toward desired conditions for springs 

in good condition; and slowly toward desired conditions for springs in fair condition. 

Likelihoods that springs would be limiting to the viability of the associated species range from 

moderate to high (table 30). These likelihoods were derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the values for quality. Springs classified as being in poor or fair condition would 

have a high likelihood and springs classified as being in good condition would have a moderate 

likelihood. 

Management effect is considered a 2, which means the plan components maintain or improve

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

(modified) contributes more to the maintenance and sustainability of springs on the forest and the 

viability of the associated species than alternative A. This is because alternative B (modified) has 

desired conditions, guidelines, and an objective to guide spring management on the forest. 

Desired conditions are spring-specific and better provide for the composition, structure and 

function of spring ecosystems than alternative A. They promote functional physical and 

biological resources consistent with waterflow patterns, recharge, and geochemistry appropriate 

to the site; diverse composition and seral stages of native aquatic and riparian species consistent 

with spring type, slope, aspect, disturbances and natural solar energy budget; and spring riparian 

zones capable of processing sediment, bedload, water quality and supporting perched waterbearing zones and groundwater recharge (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-1, 2, 3). Goals emphasize springs that 

are rarely developed and altered by human-made structures, consistent with existing water rights 

and claims and promote physical and biological components that provide habitat for species that 

are narrowly endemic or have restricted distributions (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-4 and 5). Guidelines 

would manage recharge areas to maintain or improve spring discharge; would maintain or procure 

water rights, and would protect spring sources (FW-Rip-Spr-G-1, 2, 4). These guidelines would 

maintain or improve water quantity and quality and help protect the biodiversity, endemic 

species, cultural values, and unique ecological and biophysical characteristics of springs. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

202

Guidance is also provided for the protection of groundwater resources and procurement of 

instream flows (FW-Water-DC-3,5, FW-Water-G-3). This would maintain baseflows and 

contribute to the resilience of spring ecosystems to climate and weather variability. The plan 

objective would restore riparian function to at least 25 springs not in properly functioning 

condition every 10 years to provide water quantity and aquatic habitat for the recovery of plant 

and animal species (FW-Rip-Spr-O-1). Other beneficial language regarding mitigating the effects 

of roads, connectivity of drainages, connectivity between streamcourses and upland habitats (FWRdsFac-G-2, 5). These guidelines would avoid accelerated soil erosion and loss of vegetation due 

to roads, protect water quality; and require that permanent and temporary road construction and 

relocation would avoid springs.

Alternative B (modified) removes the plan language limitations that restrict the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness allowing wildfire to play its natural role 

in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative A, 

alternative B (modified) removes the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction and would help reduce the vulnerability of springs to 

uncharacteristic fire, accelerated erosion, and increased evapotranspiration from increased density 

of trees. 

Alternative B (modified) has plan language to avoid or reduce soil compaction or disturbance and 

excessive vegetation use from domestic livestock in riparian areas. For example, in the livestock 

grazing section, grazing should be managed to meet or move toward desired conditions for other 

forest resources. Structural range improvements should be built and utilized in a manner 

consistent with desired conditions for riparian areas and other sensitive resources. See FW-GrazG-2, 4, 5. In addition, where permitted livestock has access to riparian areas, forage use should 

maintain those species, allow for plant regeneration, and lead to diverse age classes of woody 

riparian species where the potential exists. This guideline does not apply to fine-scale activities or 

facilities that are used to reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas at a larger scale, such as 

intermittent livestock crossing locations and water gaps. See FW-Graz-G-7. Soil productivity, soil 

condition, and vegetation quality and abundance within the area affected by these fine-scale 

structures or activities would be of lower quality and abundance compared to areas outside these 

areas.

Language in the recreation and trail sections could reduce vegetation, soil, and water damage to 

springs associated with recreation. Recreation would be managed to maintain, protect, or improve 

ecological attributes, processes and habitat for native species and to be in balance with the 

capacity of other resources to support recreation activities (SA-Wild-S-1 to 5; FW-Rec-All-G-2). 

Trail use would remain on established trail surfaces, especially in sensitive areas and unplanned 

user-created trails are rare (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11). Trails should be designed, built, rerouted, or 

maintained utilizing best management practices that address impacts to other resources and 

promote sustainable trail surfaces (FW-Rec-Trails-G-1.) 

A guideline in Special Uses would protect 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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

203

Habitat and properly functioning ecosystems would also be maintained in localized areas because 

of recreation and transportation suitability recommendations (chapter 4 of the revised plan). 

These recommendations state that new motorized areas, permanent roads, temporary roads, and 

motorized travel are not suitable in designated and recommended wilderness areas and botanical 

and geological areas. This adds to the protections that are associated with these special areas from 

ground-disturbing activities.

Alternative B (modified) recommends three wilderness areas but they have no known springs.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same consequences as alternative B (modified), except it would recommend 

a total of 13 wilderness areas. The Abineau and Strawberry Crater recommended wilderness areas 

are assumed to not have any springs. Recommended wilderness would reduce impacts from 

motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited administrative and permitted 

activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that maintain and do 

not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. However, new trails should be designed 

for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that preserve wilderness character (SA-RWildDC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan components would reduce disturbance to 

soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses, which could be beneficial to associated 

species. Limited access associated with recommended (and designated) wilderness could preclude 

restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or safety, or make them 

harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would also influence which or whether 

restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of restoration treatments could result 

in missed fire return intervals, increased and unnatural levels of fuels, increased density of shrubs 

and trees, or establishment and spread of invasive or non-native species. This could slow the 

trend toward spring desired conditions or increase the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized 

areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or 

establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could then alter area hydrology, fire 

regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative D

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

Perennial streamcourses, Ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses

Affected Environment 

On the Coconino NF, there are three types of streamcourses, or drainages: perennial, ephemeral, 

and intermittent. They differ in the timing and duration of waterflow and corresponding 

vegetation. Streamcourses include their associated drainages and flood plains. Perennial 

streamcourses flow year-round except during extended drought, and though some of their flows 

may be below the surface, they support riparian vegetation. Ephemeral streamcourses flow short 

term in response to storm events and lack riparian vegetation. Intermittent streamcourses flow 

seasonally, usually in response to snowmelt and may contain perennial pools. Some intermittent 

streamcourses support riparian vegetation and some do not. The vegetation in ephemeral 

drainages is not as diverse as perennial systems, but ephemeral drainages support different 

vegetative species than in the adjacent uplands.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

204

Amount

There are an estimated 5,977 miles of streamcourses within the administrative boundary of the 

Coconino NF. The forest manages about 4,975 of these miles (83 percent),with the remaining 

miles occurring on lands in various ownerships. About 85 percent of the ephemeral streamcourse 

miles, 85 percent of the intermittent streamcourse miles, and 68 percent of the perennial 

streamcourse miles within the administrative boundary are managed by the forest. 

Of the streamcourse miles managed by the forest, about 76 percent are ephemeral, 19 percent are 

intermittent, and 5 percent are perennial. Table 31 and table 32 summarize the information used to 

estimate the likelihoods that the various streamcourse types would be limiting to the viability of 

the associated species. Ephemeral streamcourses are classified as common because they are 

widespread and frequently encountered on the forest. Intermittent streamcourses are classified as 

occasional because their distribution is more limited than ephemeral, and they are not 

encountered as frequently or are encountered seasonally. Perennial streamcourses are classified as 

rare because their distribution is limited and restricted to specific locations on the forest. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

In reference conditions, water was not interrupted by roads, dams, culverts, diversions or other 

structures. Streamcourses were connected to the water table, floodplains, and uplands. Water was 

not polluted. Invasive or non-native plant and animal species were absent. Streamcourses had 

sufficient vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in floodplain development; and improve 

floodwater retention and groundwater recharge. 

Primary natural disturbances include flooding, adjacent landslides, and changing climatic 

conditions, such as drought or extreme temperatures.

Streamcourses, in general, are found forestwide in a variety of substrates, topography, and 

gradients. Streamcourses are associated with riparian forests. See the section on riparian forests 

for additional information. On the Coconino NF, most perennial streamcourses are located on the 

southern and western portions of the forest. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 31 shows 

that habitat quality for perennial streamcourses is poor with a static trend relative to reference 

conditions. This means it has a high departure from reference conditions and the number, size of 

habitat areas, or evenness in distribution across the landscape is reduced relative to reference 

conditions. 

Quality is considered poor because some streams have declining flows; some streams exceed 

State water quality standards, most streams have invasive or non-native aquatic species, and most 

streamside vegetation has invasive non-native plants. Streamflow and some well data indicate a 

recent downward trend in groundwater levels adjacent to Flagstaff and communities in the Verde 

Valley, particularly in areas that have the high groundwater pumping on private lands but is 

outside the control of the Forest Service. Continued or increased pumping may negatively affect 

the base flow of streams, especially the Verde River, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Oak 

Creek because domestic use is high adjacent to these streams, which are in the Upper Verde River 

and Lower Verde River 4th code watersheds (USDA Forest Service 2016j). Most perennial 

streams generally have static or slightly declining flows forecast for the future due to climate and 

increased use and groundwater withdrawals on and off-forest leading to reduced quality and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

205

abundance of habitat for associated species with a few exceptions. Fossil Creek has had the power 

plant decommissioned, and therefore, withdrawals reduced, and lower Oak Creek (at Sedona and 

Cornville) has a static to slightly increasing trend (USDA Forest Service 2016j). In other 

perennial streams on the forest, surface water use is higher than historical conditions because the 

number of campgrounds has increased and there is increased recreational use. The static to 

downward trend in streamflow is expected to continue over the next 20 years. In addition, 

groundwater demand is expected to exceed supply in the foreseeable future, likely affecting base 

flow of streams (USDA Forest Service 2016j), thus further limiting habitat for associated species.

Quality of perennial streams is also impacted by non-point sources of pollution. On the Coconino 

NF, the most important non-point sources of pollution are from sediment generated from roads 

near drainages and livestock grazing (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Perennial stream quality is also considered poor where there are non-native animals that compete 

with, prey on, or share diseases with native species. Non-native animals can alter the composition 

and structure of the aquatic environment. Non-native species are found in most of the waterbodies 

on the forest at varying levels. A barrier for invasive species was placed in Spring Creek in 2015, 

to separate native fishes from non-native species in that area. There is also a barrier in Fossil 

Creek. 

Table 31. Summary of coarse filter analysis for perennial streamcourses

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Rare Rare Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

Quality Poor, 

static

Poor, static Poor, trending toward Colorado pikeminnow, Gila

chub, Gila topminnow, Gila 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

High High High trout, headwater chub, Little 

Colorado spinedace, loach 

Management 

effect 

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.

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.

minnow, razorback sucker, 

roundtail chub, spikedace, 

narrow-headed gartersnake, 

northern Mexican 

gartersnake, lowland leopard 

frogs, desert sucker, Little 

Colorado sucker, roundtail 

chub, Sonora sucker, a 

caddisfly (Lepidostoma knulli), 

a caddisfly (Wormaldia 

planae), a mayfly (Moribaetis 

mimbresaurus), California 

floater, Fossil springsnail, 

Page springsnail, bluehead 

sucker, longfin dace, Arizona 

snaketail, Persephone’s 

darner, Redrock stonefly, 

beaver

There is a high likelihood that perennial streams would be a limiting factor to the viability of the 

associated species. These likelihoods were derived by combining the values for habitat abundance 

with the values for quality. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

206

Table 31 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality, and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow.

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 32 shows 

that habitat quality for intermittent and ephemeral streamcourses in locations accessible to 

motorized vehicles is poor with a static trend relative to reference conditions, and fair with a 

static trend in inaccessible locations. This means intermittent and ephemeral streamcourses have a 

high departure from reference conditions in accessible locations and moderate departure in 

inaccessible locations. Easy to get to locations are accessible for motorized vehicles, livestock, 

and various dispersed or permitted activities. The potential for accelerated erosion, sedimentation, 

soil compaction, vegetation loss, vegetation damage, and pollution is higher in these locations. 

Some of these impacts (such as sediments or pollution) could travel down drainages and affect 

inaccessible locations.

There is a high likelihood that intermittent streamcourses would be a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species in accessible locations but a moderate likelihood in inaccessible 

locations. There is a moderate likelihood that ephemeral streamcourses would be a limiting factor 

to the viability of the associated species in accessible locations, but a low-moderate likelihood in 

inaccessible locations. These likelihoods were derived by combining the values for habitat 

abundance with the values for quality. 

Table 32 also compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the 

relative expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat 

quality and is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category 

values are 1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the 

alternative is for maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater 

detail in the discussions on the alternatives that follow. 

Risk Factors

Perennial streams and ephemeral and intermittent watercourses have the same risk factors as 

described for Riparian Forests above. 

In addition to Riparian Forest risk factors, the post-fire sediment load to streams can result in loss 

of suitable habitat for associated species, fish mortality, and in some cases long-term alteration of 

water chemistry and turbidity. Wildfires can cause water quality changes that can kill aquatic 

vertebrates and macroinvertebrates (Rinne 2004, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b, Rhodes 

2007), negatively alter the food base for fishes (Earl and Blinn 2003), and can result in stream 

and riparian vegetation alteration that negatively affects aquatic ecosystems and habitat (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 31 and table 32. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

207

Table 32. Summary of coarse filter analysis for ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Intermittent streamcourses Chiricahua leopard frog,

Abundance Occasional Occasional Occasional northern Mexican 

Quality Accessible: 

Poor, static

Inaccessible: 

Fair, static

Accessible: 

Poor, static

Inaccessible: 

Fair, static

Accessible: Poor, 

trending slowly toward

Inaccessible: Fair, 

trending slowly toward

gartersnake, lowland leopard 

frog, northern leopard frog, a

mayfly (Moribaetis 

mimbresaurus), Arizona toad

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Accessible: 

High

Inaccessible: 

Moderate

Accessible: 

High

Inaccessible: 

Moderate

Accessible: High

Inaccessible: 

Moderate

Ephemeral streamcourses

Abundance Common Common Common

Quality Accessible: 

Poor, static

Inaccessible: 

Fair, static

Accessible: 

Poor, static

Inaccessible: 

Fair, static

Accessible: Poor, 

trending slowly toward

Inaccessible: Fair, 

trending slowly toward

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Accessible: 

Moderate

Inaccessible: 

Low-Moderate

Accessible: 

Moderate

Inaccessible: 

Low-Moderate

Accessible: Moderate

Inaccessible: LowModerate

Management 

effect 

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or 

improve 

protection and 

management 

for some

habitat 

occurrences in 

the plan area. 

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.

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives address the threat of invasive plants. Invasive plants can increase as a 

consequence of ground disturbance, and once established, would compete with native 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, 2; FW Invas-G-1, 2, 3; FWInvas-MgtApp; FW-Graz-MgtApp; FW-RdsFac-G-8; FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9; FW-Rec-Dev-G-2). 

Additional information and analysis is discussed under the Non-native or Invasive Species topic 

in the Wildlife and Plant Topics and Issues section.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

208

Under all alternatives, the forest would continue to pursue instream flow rights at similar levels 

(1987 Plan, page 206-116, 74; FW-Water-DC-1, 2, 5; FW-Water-G-3, 5), which, if obtained, 

would ensure that new requests for water rights would not negatively impact water quantity for 

wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation. 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 have language to meet Arizona water quality standards (1987 Plan, page 28, FWWater-DC-7 and G-5). 

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

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

FW-WFP-O-4; FW-Rip-All-G-3; FW-Rip-Strm-G-2; FW-Water-G-4; FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8. 

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 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 31 shows 

that under alternative A, habitat quality for perennial streamcourses is poor with a static trend 

relative to desired conditions. This means it has a high departure from desired condition mainly 

because alternative A has little language that addresses non-native or invasive animal species. 

Table 32 shows that habitat quality for intermittent and ephemeral streamcourses does not change 

from existing conditions. 

There is a high likelihood that perennial streams would be a limiting factor to the viability of the 

associated species. There is a high likelihood that intermittent streamcourses would be a limiting 

factor to the viability of the associated species in accessible locations but a moderate likelihood in 

inaccessible locations. There is a moderate likelihood that ephemeral streamcourses would be a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species in accessible locations, but a lowmoderate likelihood in inaccessible locations. These likelihoods were derived by combining the 

values for habitat abundance with the values for quality. 

The management effect for perennial streamcourses is a 4 under alternative A, which means the 

plan components maintain or improve protection and management for few to no habitat 

occurrences in the plan area. This is because there is little plan language for invasive or nonnative animal species or disease, which can significantly and negatively alter the quality of 

aquatic ecosystems. Portions of Spring Creek and Fossil Creek would have a low likelihood of 

being limiting to the associated fish species because fish barriers separate native from non-native 

species. Plan components under alternative A provide limited guidance for non-native aquatic 

species control, but not forestwide. Control of the impacts of non-native plant and animal species 

and discouraging the introduction of new non-natives is advocated in the Flagstaff Lake Mary 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

209

Ecosystem Area and Sedona/Oak Creek Area (1987 Plan, pages 206-9, 206-72). Alternative A has 

language to cooperate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department in evaluating proposals for reintroducing extirpated species into suitable habitat, on fish stocking and public access for fishing, 

and to prevent and/or remove unapproved introduced or invasive species (1987 Plan, page 65-12). 

The management effect for intermittent and ephemeral streamcourses is a 3 under alternative A, 

which means the plan components maintain or improve protection and management for some

habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A contributes less to the maintenance and 

sustainability of streamcourses on the forest and the viability of the associated species than the 

other alternatives. 

Alternative A has the same effects as described in Environmental Consequences for Riparian 

Forests. In addition, alternative A lacks plan components that address connectivity between 

riparian areas and uplands, between riparian and aquatic habitats and ground water, and along 

streams. These connections are essential for properly functioning ecosystems. 

Alternative A plan language lacks guidance on protecting and maintaining groundwater quality 

and aquifer levels, but does provide focus on keeping an inventory of groundwater and evaluating 

management practices (1987 Plan, page 73). Substantial groundwater drawdown has occurred on 

non-NFS land due to excessive well pumping, but this is outside the control and authority of the 

forest. Consequently, the trend for groundwater (and the streams that depend on it) is away from 

desired conditions on non-forest administered lands and static on forest lands for alternative A.

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 31 shows 

that under alternative B (modified), habitat quality for perennial streamcourses is poor, but 

instead of a static trend, there is a trend toward desired conditions. This means it has a high 

departure from reference conditions. This is mainly because the presence of invasive or nonnative animal species in streamcourses is not likely to change, but there is plan language that 

addresses non-native or invasive animal species, which provides more guidance and flexibility for 

managers to address this threat. Table 32 shows that habitat quality for intermittent and ephemeral 

streamcourses does not change from existing conditions, but the trends would improve slowly 

toward desired conditions rather than remain static, as in alternative A.

There is a high likelihood that perennial streams would be a limiting factor to the viability of the 

associated species. There is a high likelihood that intermittent streamcourses would be a limiting 

factor to the viability of the associated species in accessible locations, but a moderate likelihood 

in inaccessible locations. There is a moderate likelihood that ephemeral streamcourses would be a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species in accessible locations, but a lowmoderate likelihood in inaccessible locations. These likelihoods were derived by combining the 

values for habitat abundance with the values for quality. 

The management effect for all three streamcourse types improves to a 2 under alternative B 

(modified), which means the plan components maintain or improve protection and management 

for most habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative B (modified) contributes more to the 

maintenance and sustainability of streamcourses on the forest and the viability of the associated 

species than alternative A. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

210

Alternative B (modified) has the same effects as described in Environmental Consequences for 

Riparian Forests in addition to the following: 

The management effect 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, and 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. 

As described in the Watersheds and Water section in volume 1, alternative B (modified) better 

protects groundwater (and thereby streamcourses) through maintenance of base flows, protection 

of water quality, and procurement of instream flows (FW-Water-DC-3, 5, 7 and FW-Water-G-3). 

Implementing this guidance would improve the ability of the soil to resist erosion and infiltrate 

water, improving water quality and quantity. Riparian vegetation would improve along 

streambanks, aiding in the ability to filter sediments; capture bedload; aid floodplain 

development; and improve flood-water retention, groundwater recharge, and intermittent and 

perennial streamflow, thereby, reducing erosion, improving water quality, and protecting against 

water quality degradation. Riparian area function would improve, as would floodwater retention, 

streamflow, and groundwater recharge. Consequently, maintenance of groundwater and water 

quantity including streamflow should be better protected and move toward desired conditions 

implementing alternative B (modified) more than alternative A. Lands of other ownership have 

seen substantial groundwater drawdown due to excessive well pumping, but are outside the 

control and authority of the forest. Consequently, the trend is away on non-forest administered 

lands and likely toward for alternative B (modified). 

In contrast to alternative A, plan language in alternative B (modified) addresses connectivity of 

habitats forestwide. This alternative 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, 6; FW-Rip-AllDC-1, 2, 3; FW-Rip-All-G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-G-2; FW-TerrERU-All-DC-3; FW-TerrERUGrass-DC-3; FW-WFP-DC-6; FW-WFP-G-6; and MA-AMesa-DC-3). This language would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

211

maintain or improve habitat permeability and mitigate effects to linkages. See the section on 

Connectivity under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics above for more information. 

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 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-InvasDC-1 and 2) and guidelines (FW-Invas-G-1, 2, 3) apply to all organisms. Unlike alternative A, 

invasive species guidance is incorporated in many portions of this alternative. See the section on 

Non-native or Invasive Species under Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics above for more 

information. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified). 

Alternative D 

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified). 

Cliffs, Rocky Outcrops, and Talus Slopes

Affected Environment 

Cliffs are vertical or near vertical rock faces. They range in size from a few feet to hundreds of 

feet tall and are inherently dynamic, subject to rock fall, ice, and wind and water erosion. Cliff 

resources include any naturally occurring material or substances such as plant and animal life, 

paleontological deposits, and minerals. Cliffs have unique geology, geomorphology, and 

microclimates, and provide habitats for plants and animals adapted to a vertical environment. 

They provide perches, roosts, and nest sites for raptors such as peregrine falcons, and microsites 

for a variety of vegetation. Cliff dwellings and other heritage sites may occur on cliffs. Small 

animals such as bats and wood rats are known to occasionally use these sites. Rocky outcrops can 

be small cliffs or exposures of rock. 

Talus slopes are geological features composed of a collection of fine to coarse rock fragments at 

the base of mountains or cliffs accumulated through periodic rock fall from adjacent cliff faces or 

steep slopes. Talus slopes comprise the slopes of cinder cones. Length, width, and depth of talus 

slopes can vary widely, as can the size of rock fragments. They are inherently dynamic, subject to 

natural rock movement, freeze-thaw action, wind and water erosion, and avalanches. Talus slope 

resources include any material or substance occurring naturally such as plant and animal life, 

sediments, and minerals as well as associated archaeological features. They provide habitat and 

hibernacula for small mammals, reptiles, plants, and invertebrates. They can be devoid of 

vegetation or sparsely vegetated. Disturbance from recreation or management activities can 

destabilize the talus slopes and alter habitat (USDA Forest Service 2016j). The federally 

threatened San Francisco Peaks ragwort occurs on talus slopes.

Amount

Cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes are considered to be common because they are currently 

located where they were historically. The exact amount of these geological features on the forest

is not known. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

212

Habitat Quality and Distribution

The distribution of cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes is considered to be similar to reference 

conditions. Cliffs are distributed forestwide and are especially notable within numerous canyons 

on the forest, along the Mogollon Rim, in the Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness, and on 

prominent landforms such as Mount Elden. Examples of areas containing cliffs include the many 

canyons of streams draining the Mogollon Rim plateau such as East Clear Creek, Barbershop 

Canyon, West Clear Creek, Fossil Creek, the Mogollon Rim, and others. There are other canyon 

areas that contain cliffs in the Verde Valley and Sedona area including Oak Creek Canyon, 

Sycamore Canyon, and others. Most of these canyons are incised in sedimentary bedrock. Other 

cliffs may be found in basalt lava flows. Red Mountain Geological Area is an excellent example 

of cliff formations on the forest. Talus slopes also occur forestwide. 

The quality of the cliff, rocky outcrop, and talus slope environments (geology, hydrology, 

available microclimates, aspect, topography, natural processes, biology) is considered to be 

similar to reference conditions at the landscape level, so quality is classified as good. There are 

site-specific and localized areas where modifications have occurred such as road cuts, cinder pits, 

and rock climbing areas. In some cases, portions of cliffs, outcrops, or talus slopes have been 

removed. In other cases, modifications have been slight, e.g., widening of cracks. 

The likelihood that cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes are limiting to the viability of the 

associated species is low (table 33).

Table 33. Summary of the coarse filter analysis for Cliffs, Rocky Outcrops, and Talus Slopes

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D Associated Species

Abundance Common Common California condor, 

Quality Good Good, static Mexican spotted owl, San 

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Low Low Francisco Peaks ragwort, 

American peregrine 

Management 

effect

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.

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.

falcon, bald eagle, Allen’s 

lappet-browed bat, 

spotted bat, Pale 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, Flagstaff 

pennyroyal, Lyngholm’s 

cliffbrake, rock fleabane, 

Senator Mine alum-root, 

golden eagle, greater 

western mastiff bat, black 

spleenwort, ebony 

spleenwort, Fossil Creek 

bedstraw, Utah 

bladderfern

Table 33 compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative 

expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat quality and 

is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 

1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the alternative is for 

maintaining the habitat. The effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the 

discussions on the alternatives that follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

213

Risk Factors

No activities affect cliffs and rocky outcrops landscapewide. The exceptions would be where 

people interface with these features, such as near viewpoints, along trails and roads, and at rock 

climbing areas and dispersed camping sites. Likely impacts are localized and include soil 

compaction, surface disturbance, vegetation trampling and removal, and disturbance of wildlife. 

Other localized impacts could include cliff removal and modification during road construction or 

maintenance, or during slope stabilization. These activities would affect individuals of certain 

species

No activities affect talus slopes forestwide. Localized disturbance from recreation or management 

activities, however, can destabilize the talus slopes and alter habitat in specific areas. Habitats that 

are located on talus slopes are vulnerable to damage or modification from ground-disturbing 

activities that could alter humidity levels, increase sedimentation, or destabilize slopes, which 

could alter habitat for certain species.

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 33. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Most of the wilderness areas on the forest are in canyons or in mountainous terrain, and therefore, 

potentially contain cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes. Cliffs are specifically mentioned in the 

descriptions of Wet Beaver Wilderness, Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness and Munds 

Mountain Wilderness (1987 Plan, pages 101 to 104). All of the existing wildernesses in 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D include descriptions of topography that could potentially 

contain these features. Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable 

laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness 

quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 

11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Mechanized and motorized travel is prohibited 

in designated wilderness, and therefore, these activities would not impact these geological 

features. However, dispersed recreation such as rock climbing, hiking, canyoneering, and 

bouldering would still be allowable activities. These activities can cause erosion of surfaces, rock 

fall, crushing of plants, and rock slides or slides on talus slopes in localized areas. Some cliffs 

contain prehistoric cliff dwellings, which are protected by law regulation and policy in all 

alternatives.

All alternatives close the Alpine Tundra ERU (which contains cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus 

slopes) 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 these 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

214

geological features by protecting the Alpine Tundra itself. 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 that is located in the Inner Basin of the San 

Francisco Peaks is limited to day-use foot traffic (1987 Plan, page 108; MA-InBsn-G-7). This 

plan language is protective of these geological features by reducing ground-disturbing activities.

Alternative A

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 33 shows 

that under alternative A the quality of cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes is classified as good. 

This means there is a low departure from desired conditions and the number, size, and evenness 

of distribution of habitat areas across the landscape are similar to reference conditions. The 

quality was considered good, because it was assumed that the associated species could only occur 

in suitable sites and would not occur in unsuitable sites (those categorized as poor or fair). 

There is a low likelihood that these geological features would be a limiting factor to the viability 

of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for habitat quality. There would be a moderate likelihood if the habitat 

for a particular species was categorized as fair, and a high likelihood of limitation if species 

habitat was classified as poor. 

The management effect is a 4. This means there could be 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 contributes less to the maintenance and sustainability of cliffs, 

rocky outcrops, and talus slopes and the viability of the associated species than the other 

alternatives.

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 generally 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, 

206-46). Alternative A directs the forest to manage and stabilize several of the major known cliff 

dwellings (1987 Plan, page 56). Management of the stability and integrity of talus slopes and 

cliffs and their ecosystems is not addressed in alternative A, and so, the consequences of this 

alternative would be that there would be no direction for management of these features and the 

habitats they provide. 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 33 shows 

that under alternative B (modified), the quality of cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes would 

be classified as good, same as alternative A. The quality was considered good because it was 

assumed that the associated species could only occur in suitable sites and would not occur in 

unsuitable sites (those categorized as poor or fair). 

There is a low likelihood that these geological features would be a limiting factor to the viability 

of the associated species. This likelihood was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for habitat quality. There would be a moderate likelihood if the habitat 

for a particular species was categorized as fair, and a high likelihood of limitation if species 

habitat was classified as poor. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

215

In contrast to alternative A, the management effect is a 2, which means that plan components in 

alternative B (modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat 

occurrences in the plan area and thus contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of 

cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes and the viability of the associated species than alternative 

A.

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) addresses the management of cliffs, rocky 

outcrops, and talus slopes in Geological Features, which is a subsection of the Biophysical 

Features section. 

Desired conditions would maintain the physical and ecological integrity of these geological 

features. Plan components would seek to maintain cliffs and other biophysical features in 

generally undisturbed conditions and protect them from human activities, maintaining the 

cultural, archaeological, geological, hydrological, paleontological, biological, and aesthetic 

resources of these features (FW-BioPhy-Geo-DC-1). Plan components also acknowledge the 

importance of the specialized habitats for plants and animals that depend on them (FW-BioPhyGeo-DC-6). A guideline requires that projects be designed and uses 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 pre-disturbance conditions and function 

(FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). A desired condition in Wildlife, Fish and Plants provides direction to 

preserve the composition, structure, and function of the ERUs and the associated 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). 

Springs, in general, are important habitat components on the forest. Hanging gardens are a 

subtype of springs and are formed where water emerges from an underground source on a cliff 

face, often at the juncture of geologically distinct rock layers. Forestwide desired conditions for 

springs (FW-Rip-Spr-DC-5) provide 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. 

The scenic integrity of cliffs is broadly addressed in this alternative. A forestwide Scenic 

Resources desired condition recognizes the importance of cultural, historic, and unique geological 

features for their inherent scenic values, and would apply to cliffs for both the cultural and 

geological integrity (FW-Scenic-DC-6). This guidance is broader because it does not specifically 

mention “cliffs,” but unlike alternative A, this guidance applies forestwide. 

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 conditions. 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

216

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. 

Recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified) could contain cliffs, rocky outcrops, or 

talus slopes although the extent is unknown. Plan components for recommended wilderness 

would reduce impacts from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited 

administrative and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). 

Mechanized uses that maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. 

However, new trails should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that 

preserve wilderness character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan 

components would reduce disturbance to these geological features. In addition, it is unlikely that 

roads or trails would occur or be built on cliffs or talus slopes that are generally inaccessible. This 

language could reduce disturbance to rocky outcrops. However, because rocky outcrops can be 

more accessible than cliffs and more stable than talus slopes, roads and trails could be more likely 

to intersect them. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there could be 

more areas of cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes affected by the higher number of 

recommended wilderness acres proposed in this alternative. The extent of the geological features 

is not known. The protective effect of recommended wilderness would be localized. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), except there would be no 

recommended wilderness. 

Caves

Affected Environment 

Caves include any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages 

beneath the Earth’s surface or within a cliff or ledge, and that is large enough to permit a person 

to enter, whether the entrance is excavated or naturally formed. This definition includes any 

fissure, crack, lava tube, natural pit, sinkhole, or other opening, which is an extension of a cave 

entrance or an integral part of the cave. 

Cave resources include any material or substance occurring naturally in caves such as plant and 

animal life, archaeological materials, paleontological deposits, water and sediments, minerals, 

cave formations, and cave relief features. Most cave resources are not replaceable or renewable. 

Some caves are of traditional importance to various American Indian groups. 

Caves provide nest, roost, and den sites, and habitat for cave-dwelling and endemic species. A 

cave’s suitability for bat roost and hibernacula is determined primarily by cave microclimate; 

particularly temperature and humidity, as well as protection from disturbance. Bats, especially 

large roosting colonies, are important to cave ecosystems, because cave ecosystems rely almost 

entirely on the surface for nutrients and bats deposit considerable amounts of surface nutrients 

into caves via guano. Consequently, cave-roosting bats can support an entire ecosystem, and are 

often considered keystone species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

217

Amount

Caves are categorized as common because most caves are assumed to be currently located where 

they were in reference condition, but not all cave locations are known by the Forest Service. 

Habitat Quality and Distribution

The distribution is considered to be similar to reference conditions. Because not all caves are 

known and because mapping and inventory is lacking for many caves, cave quality is considered 

variable. Cave quality includes geology, available microclimates, hydrology, topography, natural 

processes, and biology. Some caves are plugged or significantly compromised due to site-specific

circumstances such as highway construction, well drilling, or because they have been considered 

hazards. Other caves are in nearly pristine condition. 

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 34 shows 

that cave quality would be considered good when: recreation or other uses are low or at a level 

where cave attributes are not damaged or compromised and the cave is functioning properly; the 

cave is inaccessible; and/or the cave is protected from potentially damaging uses by 

administrative closure, fencing, gating, or other means. Cave quality would be considered poor 

when: recreation or other uses are high or at a level where cave attributes are damaged or 

compromised and the cave is not functioning properly; the cave is well-known and accessible and 

the cave is not protected from potentially damaging uses by administrative closure, fencing, 

gating, or other means. Cave quality is considered fair when the criteria fall between good and 

poor. 

Table 34 shows that the likelihood that cave habitat would be limiting to the associated species

varies from low to high. These likelihoods that habitat would be limiting to the associated species 

were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Accordingly, when habitat quality is considered good, the likelihood of limitation is low. When 

habitat quality is fair, the likelihood of limitation is moderate, and when habitat quality is poor, 

the likelihood of departure is high. 

Table 34 compares management effect by alternative. Management effect categorizes the relative

expected outcome of plan language in each alternative in terms of maintaining habitat quality and 

is the result of plan decisions, including plan objectives. Management effect category values are 

1, 2, 3, and 4. The lower the management effects rating, the more effective the alternative is for 

maintaining the habitat. 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

218

Table 34. Summary of the coarse filter analysis for Caves

Habitat Existing Alternative A Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D

Associated 

Species

Abundance Common Common Allen’s lappetQuality Poor: 

Accessible and 

heavily used or 

modified

Good: 

Inaccessible or 

protected by 

other means

Fair: Lightly

Impacted

Good (inaccessible, 

rarely visited, 

resources in good 

condition), Fair

(between good and 

poor), or Poor 

(accessible, not 

protected, high 

visitation, 

resources highly 

modified), static

Good (inaccessible, 

rarely visited, resources 

in good condition), Fair

(between good and 

poor), or Poor 

(accessible, not 

protected, high visitation, 

resources highly 

modified), static

browed bat, Pale 

Townsend’s bigeared bat, spotted 

bat, southwestern 

myotis

Likelihood of 

Limitation

Low, Moderate, 

or High (see 

text)

Low for caves with 

good quality, 

Moderate for caves 

with fair quality, or 

High for caves with 

poor quality

Low for caves with good 

quality, Moderate for 

caves with fair quality, or 

High for caves with poor 

quality

Management 

effect

3: Plan 

components 

maintain or improve 

protection and 

management for 

some habitat 

occurrences in the 

plan area. 

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.

Risk Factors

No activities affect cliffs and rocky outcrops landscapewide. The exceptions would be where 

people interface with these features, such as near view points, along trails and roads, and at rock 

climbing areas and dispersed camping sites. Likely impacts are localized and include soil 

compaction, surface disturbance, and vegetation trampling and removal. Other localized impacts 

could include cliff removal and modification, such as during road construction or maintenance, or 

during slope stabilization. These activities would affect individuals of certain species. 

No activities affect talus slopes forestwide. Localized disturbance from recreation or management 

activities, however, can destabilize the talus slopes and alter habitat in specific areas. Habitats that 

are located on talus slopes are vulnerable to damage or modification from ground-disturbing 

activities that could alter humidity levels, increase sedimentation, or destabilize slopes, which 

could alter habitat for certain species. 

Associated Species

Associated species are listed in table 34. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Plan components in all alternatives contribute to species viability by managing habitat to maintain 

viable and sustainable populations of wildlife and fish species and by improving and protecting 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

219

habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 23; FW-EcoDC-1; FW-WFP-DC-1, 2, 3, 5, 6; FW-WFP-G-3, 10). See At-risk Species in the Wildlife and 

Plant Issues and Topics section above for more information. 

Most of the wilderness areas on the forest are in canyons or in mountainous terrain, and therefore, 

potentially contain cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes. Cliffs are specifically mentioned in the 

descriptions of Wet Beaver Wilderness, Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness and Munds 

Mountain Wilderness (1987 Plan, pages 101 to 104). All of the existing wildernesses in 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D include descriptions of topography that could potentially 

contain these features. Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable 

laws, policy, and Forest Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness 

quality, and to emphasize wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 

11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Mechanized and motorized travel is prohibited 

in designated wilderness, and therefore, these activities would not impact these geological 

features. However, dispersed recreation such as rock climbing, hiking, canyoneering, and 

bouldering would still be allowable activities. These activities can cause erosion of surfaces, rock 

fall, crushing of plants, and rock slides or slides on talus slopes in localized areas. Some cliffs 

contain prehistoric cliff dwellings, which are protected by law regulation and policy in all 

alternatives.

All alternatives close the Alpine Tundra ERU (which contains cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus 

slopes) 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 these 

geological features by protecting the Alpine Tundra itself. 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 located in the Inner Basin of the San 

Francisco Peaks is limited to day-use foot traffic (1987 Plan, page 108; MA-InBsn-G-7). This 

plan language is protective of these geological features by reducing ground-disturbing activities.

Alternative A

Utilizing the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 34 shows 

that caves in good condition would have a low likelihood of being limiting to the associated 

species, caves in fair condition would have a moderate likelihood of being a limiting factor to the 

viability of the associated species, and caves in poor condition would have a high likelihood. 

The management effect is a 3, which means that plan components maintain or improve protection 

and management for some habitat occurrences in the plan area. Alternative A contributes 

somewhat less to the maintenance and sustainability of caves and the viability of the associated 

species than the other alternatives.

Alternative A would protect or reduce potential impacts to caves designated as significant under 

the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 or those being evaluated because they would 

be exempt from locational disclosures. Cave locations and resources would also be kept 

confidential when needed to protect archaeological resources, wildlife habitat, cave biota, 

geological features, and paleontological deposits. This alternative also promotes the issuance of 

research permits, which could reduce disturbance to cave environs (1987 Plan, page 51-1). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

220

Alternative A would protect cave ecology and resources by maintaining cave microclimate, 

hydrology, and entrance vegetation; would not use cave entrances or karst for refuse disposal 

sites; would consider on a case-by-case basis any request to locate caves using special excavation 

techniques; would generally not allow major alterations to caves; would not allow drilling over 

known caves: and would not allow sediments from access roads and drilling sites to be washed or 

discharged into caves or karst features (1987 Plan, page 51-2). 

Alternative B (modified)

Using the analysis process described under the Species Viability section above, table 34 shows 

that under alternative B (modified), the quality of caves would be classified as good, fair, or poor, 

same as alternative A. There is also a low likelihood that these geological features would be a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species when the quality of the cave is good, a 

moderate likelihood when the quality of the cave is fair, and a high likelihood when the quality of 

the cave is poor. It is assumed that the associated species would occupy suitable habitat, i.e., 

caves in good condition, because the habitat would meet their life history requirements.

In contrast to alternative A, the management effect is a 2, which means that plan components in 

alternative B (modified) maintain or improve protection and management for most habitat 

occurrences in the plan area, and thus, contribute more to the maintenance and sustainability of 

caves and the viability of the associated species than alternative A.

Alternative B (modified) updates plan components that pertain to caves and karst with goals that 

would maintain humidity, temperature, and disturbance levels in caves consistent with historic 

conditions (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-3) and that promote the maintenance of undisturbed cave and 

karst resources (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has an 

express goal that would maintain the hydrology of karst landscapes and cave formations by 

promoting the development or erosion of these features under natural conditions and the naturally 

fluctuating background levels of water, sediment, organic matter, and dissolved minerals in 

unpolluted water flowing into, from, or within these systems (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-2). 

Alternative B (modified) has two guidelines that would protect caves and maintain their 

ecological integrity. One guideline would require that projects be designed and uses 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 pre-disturbance conditions 

and function (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). Another guideline would require that aquatic management 

zones or best management practices be applied to perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral 

streamcourses to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological conditions of connected or 

downstream caves, karst, and lava tubes (FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-8). 

Alternative B (modified) also has a management approach that reminds managers to collaborate 

with key stakeholders regarding conservation, interpretation, and education for cave-dwelling 

species and associated resources.

Alternative C

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

Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects as alternative B (modified). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

221

Coarse Filter Habitat Findings 

This section summarizes the coarse filter effects from the Coarse Filter: Habitat section above. 

Table 35 shows vegetation and soil quality and trend, likelihood that the habitat is limiting, and 

management effect by terrestrial ERU and by alternative. Vegetation and soil quality reflect the 

ERU departure and trends from the Vegetation and Fire, and Soil sections in volume I of the 

FEIS. Using the analysis process described in the Species Viability section above, likelihood of 

habitat limitation values represent the intersection of abundance and quality. The values range 

from high (H), moderate-high (M-H), moderate (M), low-moderate (L-M), to low (L). High 

means that there is a high likelihood that the habitat could be a limiting factor to the viability of

the associated species. 

Table 35. Summary of coarse filter findings for terrestrial ERUs

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D

Desert Communities

(DC)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Poor, away

Quality-Soil Fair, static Fair, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation H

Management Effect 3 2

Semi-desert Grassland

(SDG)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Poor, away Poor, slightly toward

Quality-Soil Poor, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation H

Management Effect 3 2

Interior Chaparral 

(IC)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Good, away then fair, away Good, away

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, toward

Likelihood of Limitation L then M L

Management Effect 4 2

Great Basin Grassland

(GBG)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Good, away then fair, away Good, static

Quality-Soil Poor, slowly toward Poor, toward

Likelihood of Limitation L then M L

Management Effect 3 2

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland (MSG)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Good, away then fair, away Good, toward

Quality-Soil Overall: Poor, static Overall: Poor, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation Low then moderate Low

Management Effect 3 2
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

222

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D

Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass (PJG)

Abundance Common

Quality-Vegetation Fair, toward then away Low objective: Fair, toward then 

slowly away 

High objective: Fair, toward, then 

slowly away

Quality-Soil

Good, away

Low objective: Good, slowly toward 

short term, slowly away long term

High objective: Good, slowly 

toward short term, static long term

Likelihood of Limitation L-M

Management Effect 3 2

Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub (PJES)

Abundance Common

Quality-Vegetation Fair, away

Quality-Soil Fair, away Fair, slowly toward in treated areas 

otherwise Fair, static

Likelihood of Limitation L-M

Management Effect 3 2

Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland (PJW)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Good, static 

Quality-Soil Fair, away Fair, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation L

Management Effect 3 2

Aspen

Abundance Rare

Quality-vegetation Poor, away Poor, away 

Quality-soil PP low objective and MCFF, MCIF, 

SF: Good, static

PP high objective: Good, slowly 

toward

PP low objective: Good, static

PP high objective: Good, toward

MCFF and MCIF: Good, slowly 

toward. 

SF: Good, static

Likelihood of Limitation H

Management Effect 3 2

Ponderosa Pine

(PP)

Abundance Common

Quality-Vegetation Low objective: Poor, toward then Fair, 

toward

High objective: Fair, toward 

Low objective: Poor, toward then 

Fair, toward

High objective: Fair, toward 

Quality-Soil Good, toward in treated areas and 

good, static in untreated areas

Good, toward in treated areas and 

good, static in untreated areas

Likelihood of Limitation Low objective: M then L-M; High 

objective: L-M

Low objective: M then L-M; High 

objective: L-M

Management Effect 3 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

223

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D

Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire (MCFF)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation

Fair, toward then fair, static 

Low objective: Fair, toward then 

Fair, static

High objective: Good, toward then 

good, static

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation M Low objective: M 

High objective: L

Management Effect 3 2

Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire (MCIF)

Abundance Occasional

Quality-Vegetation Fair, away then poor, away Fair, static

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation M then H M

Management Effect 3 2

Spruce-fir

(SF)

Abundance Rare

Quality-Vegetation Fair, toward

Quality-Soil Good, static

Likelihood of Limitation H

Management Effect 4 2

Alpine/Tundra

(AT)

Abundance Rare

Quality-vegetation Good, away

Quality-Soil Good, static

Likelihood of Limitation M

Management Effect 2

Improving habitats, or those maintained in good condition, would contribute to the viability of the 

associated species. Compared to alternative A, vegetation quality in following habitats are 

improving under the plan direction in alternatives B (modified), C, and D: Semi-desert Grassland, 

Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, Pinyon Juniper Woodland, Ponderosa 

Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire under the high treatment objective, Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire, Spruce-fir, and Alpine/Tundra. 

Vegetation quality in alternatives B (modified), C, and D for Interior Chaparral would improve to 

good compared to the alternative A long-term trend of fair and away, but the trend would be away 

from desired conditions for the life of the plan. The good quality habitat would contribute to the 

viability of the associated species, but viability of the associated species could be a concern after 

50 years.

Compared to alternative A, soil quality in following habitats are improving under the plan 

direction in alternatives B (modified), C, and D: Desert Communities, Interior Chaparral, Great 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

224

Basin Grassland, Pinyon Juniper with Grass under the high treatment objective, Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub and Pinyon Juniper Woodland, Aspen, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire under 

the high treatment objective, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire. Soil quality in Semi-desert 

Grassland would improve in all alternatives, and Ponderosa Pine, Spruce-Fir, and Alpine/Tundra 

would remain good in all alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, the following terrestrial ERUs have a low to moderate likelihood that 

habitat would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species: Interior Chaparral, 

Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, all the pinyon juniper types, Ponderosa 

Pine, and Alpine/Tundra. These likelihood levels would contribute to the viability of the 

associated species.

Under alternative A, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would have a moderate-high to high 

likelihood of being a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species in the long term.

This is because treatments levels would remain relatively low, so changes in age class diversity, 

increased canopy cover, loss of early successional species, and a reduction in herbaceous 

understory would contribute to a high departure from desired conditions. Under alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D, this ERU would improve to a moderate likelihood of limitation. Although 

expected treatment levels would not change, desired conditions in these alternatives have a 

greater potential to reduce ERU departure and move toward desired conditions than alternative A. 

The following terrestrial ERUs have a moderate-high to high likelihood that habitat would be a 

limiting factor to the viability of the associated species under all alternatives: Desert 

Communities, Semi-desert Grassland, Aspen, and Spruce-Fir. This is because Desert 

Communities and Semi-desert Grassland are in poor condition and there are either no plan 

treatment objectives (Desert Communities) or expected treatment objectives are insufficient to 

deal with the magnitude of departure (Semi-desert Grassland). The high likelihood of limitation 

for Aspen is that expected treatment objectives are insufficient to deal with the magnitude of 

departure and some of the contributing factors to the departure (drought, insects, excessive 

wildlife herbivory) are outside the control of the Forest Service. The high likelihood of limitation 

for Spruce-fir is because the ERU is naturally rare. 

Table 35 compares management effects by alternatives as well. Management effect is a measure 

of how well plan components maintain or protect habitat occurrences within the plan area. Three 

categories of management effect were used: category 2 means that most habitat elements were 

protected or maintained, category 3 means that some habitat elements were protected or 

maintained, and category 4 means that few or no habitat elements were protected or maintained. 

Category 4 generally means that there are few to no plan components to guide management. The 

management effects are category 2 for alternatives B (modified), C, and D, because these 

alternatives incorporate plan components that are more comprehensive (forestwide versus one 

management area), more in line with best available science than alternative A, and address threats 

that weren’t recognized when the current plan was developed and amended. This is discussed in 

detail under the individual ERUs and habitats above. Notably, alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

address Interior Chaparral and Spruce-fir, which have little plan direction in alternative A. 

Table 36 shows quality and trend, likelihood that the habitat is limiting, and management effect 

by riparian area and by alternative. Riparian functional condition, wetland functional conditions, 

quality, and soil quality reflect riparian area departure and trends from the Riparian Area and Soil 

sections in volume I of the FEIS. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

225

Table 36. Summary of coarse filter findings for riparian areas

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Cottonwood Willow Riparian 

Forest (CWRF)

Abundance Rare

Quality- Riparian functional 

condition

Fair, slowly toward except 

portions of Verde River, Dry 

Beaver Creek and Lower Oak 

Creek are static in areas of high 

recreation and private land.

Good, slowly toward

Quality-soil Poor, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation H M

Management Effect 3 2

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest (MBDFR)

Abundance Rare

Quality-Riparian Functional 

Condition

Good, majority is static to slowly 

toward except: Beaver Creek 5th

code HUC is Fair, trending slowly 

toward; Oak Creek 5th code HUC 

is Fair to Good and static; West 

Clear Creek 5th code HUC is 

Good and static; and portions of 

Fossil Creek where recreation 

impacts occur are trending away.

Good, majority is slowly toward 

except: Beaver Creek 5th code 

HUC is Good, trending toward 

except Fair in recreation impact 

areas; Oak Creek 5th code HUC 

is Good and toward; West Clear 

Creek 5th code HUC is Good and 

slowly toward; and Fossil Creek 

5th code HUC is Good, toward.

Quality-Soil Good, static Good, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation M

Management Effect 3 2

Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest (MWRF)

Abundance Rare

Quality-Riparian Functional 

Condition

Good, static to slowly toward 

except Fair, toward in Upper 

Clear Creek 5th code HUC

Same as Alternative A except 

Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC 

is Good, toward.

Quality - Soil Good, static Good, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation M except H in Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area and Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code HUC in East 

Clear Creek and tributaries

M 

Management Effect 3 2

Wetlands

Abundance Rare

Quality- wetland functional 

condition

By acres: good, toward

By number of wetlands: Fair, 

toward

Good, toward

Quality-Soil Poor, static Poor, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation By acreage: M

By number of wetlands: H M 

Management Effect 3 2
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

226

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Springs

Abundance Rare

Quality Poor for developed, accessible, 

unprotected springs/away;

Good for undeveloped springs 

that are protected or have poor 

access/toward;

Fair for springs between High 

and Low/Slowly toward

Poor for developed, accessible, 

unprotected springs/away;

Good for undeveloped springs 

that are protected or have poor 

access/toward;

Fair for springs between High 

and Low/Slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation High for poor and fair quality, 

Moderate for good quality

High for poor and fair quality, 

Moderate for good quality

Management Effect 4 2

Perennial Streamcourses

Abundance Rare

Quality Poor, static Poor, toward

Likelihood of Limitation H because most streams support 

non-native or invasive fish.

Accessible portions of streams 

are high due to high recreation. 

H because most streams support 

non-native or invasive fish.

Accessible portions of streams 

are high due to high recreation.

Management Effect 4 2

Ephemeral and Intermittent 

Streamcourses

Abundance Occasional

Quality Poor, static Poor, slowly toward

Likelihood of Limitation Accessible: H

Inaccessible: M

Management Effect 3 2

Habitats that are improving, or those maintained in good condition, would contribute to the 

viability of the associated species. Compared to alternative A, riparian functional condition in all 

riparian forest types and wetlands are improving under the plan direction in alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D. The quality of perennial, ephemeral, and intermittent streamcourses would 

improve as well. Soil quality would improve in Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Montane Willow 

as well, while Cottonwood Willow is predicted to move slowly toward desired conditions in all 

alternatives.

Spring quality and trend categories would remain the same between alternatives, but the number 

of springs in the different categories would change over the life of the plan, depending on various 

factors such as future workforce capacity, budget, and Forest priorities, which are unknown at this 

time. The categories are: Poor quality with a trend away from desired conditions for springs that 

are developed, accessible, and unprotected from human disturbances; good quality with a trend 

toward desired conditions for undeveloped springs that are protected or have poor access; and fair 

quality with a slow trend toward desired conditions for springs that fall between poor and good. 

Any springs that are improved so they move into fair or good quality categories would also 

contribute to the viability of the associated species.

Under all alternatives, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous would have a moderate likelihood that habitat 

would be a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. The likelihood levels for 

Cottonwood Willow, Montane Willow, and Wetlands would improve under alternatives B 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

227

(modified), C, and D, compared to alternative A. Cottonwood Willow would go from high to 

moderate likelihood and Montane Willow would go from moderate on a portion of the ERU to 

moderate for all the ERU. These changes in likelihoods would all contribute to the viability of the 

associated species. 

Likelihoods of habitat limitation do not change between alternatives for springs, perennial 

streamcourses, or ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses. There would be a moderate 

likelihood that springs, ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses, and perennial streamcourses 

would be limiting only when springs are classified in good condition, ephemeral and intermittent 

streamcourses are hard-to-access, and perennial streamcourses have a barrier or other means that 

maintain segments free of invasive or non-native species. Otherwise, there are high likelihoods of 

limitation in accessible, high recreation use areas; areas that support invasive or non-native 

animal species; or developed, accessible and unprotected springs.

Table 36 compares management effects by alternatives as well. Management effect is a measure 

of how well plan components maintain or protect habitat occurrences within the plan area. Three 

categories of management effect were used: category 2 means that most habitat elements were 

protected or maintained, category 3 means that some habitat elements were protected or 

maintained, and category 4 means that few or not habitat elements were protected or maintained. 

Category 4 generally means that there are few to no plan components to guide management. 

The management effects are category 2 for alternatives B (modified), C, and D, because these 

alternatives incorporate plan components that are more comprehensive (forestwide versus a few

management areas), more in line with best available science than alternative A, and address 

threats that weren’t recognized when the current plan was developed and amended. This is 

discussed in detail under the individual ERUs and habitats above. Notably, alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D address Interior Chaparral, Spruce-Fir, Springs, invasive or non-native 

animals and disease (which contribute to departures in perennial streams), and Spruce-fir which 

have little plan direction in alternative A. Management effect categories for alternative A are 3 or 

4. 

Table 37 shows abundance, quality and trend, likelihood that the habitat is limiting, and 

management effect by geological resource and by alternative. Quality reflects information in the 

Biophysical Features section in volume I of the FEIS, the current forest plan, and revised forest 

plan. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

228

Table 37. Summary of coarse filter findings for geological resources

Habitat Factors Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, and D

Cliffs, Rocky Outcrops, and 

Talus Slopes

Abundance Common

Quality Good, static

Likelihood of Limitation L

Management Effect 4 2

Caves

Abundance Common

Quality Good (inaccessible, rarely 

visited, resources in good 

condition) , Fair (between 

good and poor), or Poor 

(accessible, not protected, 

high visitation, resources 

highly modified), static

Good (inaccessible, rarely visited, 

resources in good condition) , Fair 

(between good and poor), or Poor 

(accessible, not protected, high 

visitation, resources highly modified), 

static

Likelihood of Limitation L for caves with good quality, 

M for caves with fair quality, 

or H for caves with poor 

quality 

L for caves with good quality, M for 

caves with fair quality, or H for caves 

with poor quality 

Management Effect 3 2

Cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes would contribute to the viability of the associated species 

because they are maintained in good condition under all alternatives. Caves in good and fair 

condition would also contribute to species viability depending on site-specific conditions and 

species needs. 

Under all alternatives, cliffs, rocky outcrops, talus slopes, and caves in good condition would 

have a low likelihood of being a limiting factor to the viability of the associated species. Caves 

classified as fair quality would have a moderate likelihood of being limiting, whereas caves 

classified as poor would contribute little to the viability of associated species and probably would 

not be used by the more mobile species. 

Table 37 compares management effects by alternatives as well. Cliffs, rocky outcrops, and talus 

slopes have a management effect of 4 and caves have a management effect of 3 under alternative 

A. The 1987 plan as amended has few to no plan components that address cliffs, rocky outcrops, 

and talus slopes and some plan components for caves, but some are out of date. Alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D have updated plan components for these geological features. The 

management effects are category 2 for alternatives B (modified), C, and D, because these 

alternatives incorporate plan components that are more comprehensive (forestwide versus a few

management areas), more in line with best available science than alternative A, and address 

threats that weren’t recognized when the current plan was developed and amended. This is 

discussed in detail under the individual habitats above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

229

Coarse Filter Species Findings

The two-stage coarse filter/fine filter process for analyzing species is described in the Analysis 

section under Species Viability above. Viability needs of coarse filter species are generally met by 

the coarse filter plan components alone, i.e., providing habitat that meets desired conditions or 

movement toward them. Standards and guidelines help meet the viability needs of species 

associated with fine filter habitat elements. However, standards and guidelines can also contribute 

to the viability for some coarse filter species and a portion of the needs of fine filter species can 

also be provided by coarse filter desired conditions for ERUs and the different habitats. 

For all species, 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. 

Species with Low to Moderate Likelihood of Limitation

This section discusses the species with no fine filter threats, whose likelihood of habitat and 

likelihood of species limitations are low, low-moderate, or moderate across all alternatives for all 

their habitats. The species in this group include greater western mastiff bat, pinyon jay, and 

western burrowing owl. Table 38 lists likelihood of habitat and likelihood of species limitations 

for greater western mastiff bat and pinyon jay. The western burrowing owl is a Southwestern 

Region sensitive species and discussed in greater detail below. The likelihoods that habitat would 

be limiting to the associated species were derived by combining the value for habitat abundance 

with the value for vegetation quality. The likelihoods that the species were limited by its habitat 

was derived by integrating the likelihood of habitat limitation with the species F Rank. 

The greater western mastiff bat is the largest bat in the United States. Its wing structure is adapted 

for straight rapid flight, so it is unable to drink from water sources less than 30 meters long and 

needs a vertical drop zone of 10 feet or more to take off from roosts. One dead specimen was 

reported from Flagstaff in 1992 (AZGFD 2014). A live young bat was reported from the Red 

Rock Ranger District in 2015. Greater western mastiff bat is classified as an Other forest planning 

species. These bats roost individually or in colonies in crevices in cliffs and can feed at least 

15 miles from their roost sites. They forage for insects over large open bodies of water, at 

considerable heights covering extensive areas, and on the ground. Their primary threats are 

associated with their habitat.

The distribution of pinyon jays parallels the distribution of Colorado pinyon pine. Pinyon jays 

rely on pinyon trees for seed and wander irregularly and erratically for food. They nest in 

colonies. Pinyon jays are associated with all three pinyon juniper ERUs: Pinyon Juniper 

Evergreen Shrub (PJES), Pinyon Juniper with Grass (PJG), and Pinyon Juniper Woodland (PJW). 

Their primary threats are those associated with their habitat. The extensive loss of pinyon pines 

on the forest in the early 2000s due to drought and subsequent bark beetle infestations will 

undoubtedly also negatively affect populations (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). 

The ratings in table 38 indicate that the alternatives would result in effects no more substantial 

than normal variability in the habitats for these three species. Consequently, there is no risk to 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

230

viability and viability is assured. These species are not further analyzed except additional 

information for the western burrowing owl is provided below because it is a sensitive species.

Table 38. Summary for greater western mastiff bat and pinyon jays

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D 

Habitat Species Likelihood 

habitat is 

limiting

Likelihood 

species is 

limited by 

habitat

Likelihood 

habitat is 

limiting

Likelihood 

species is 

limited by 

habitat

Cliffs Greater western 

mastiff bat

L L L L 

PJES Pinyon jay L-M L-M L-M L-M 

PJW Pinyon jay L L L L 

PJG Pinyon jay L-M L-M L-M L-M 

Western burrowing owl

There is one confirmed sighting of western burrowing owl species near (but not on) the forest at 

about 6,600 feet elevation in a prairie dog colony near Flagstaff (Corman and Wise-Gervais 

2005). There is no known occupied habitat. Burrowing owls are associated with Great Basin 

Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, and Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs. There is an 

estimated 374,544 acres of habitat on the forest. They are found in flat, open, low-stature 

grasslands, sparsely vegetated desert shrub, and edges of human-disturbed land. These owls take 

over burrows of prairie dogs and ground squirrels, and dens of coyote, fox and badger. There are 

no species-specific risk factors for western burrowing owls. The threats to the species are the 

same as the threats to the habitat.

Table 39 summarizes the viability analysis for western burrowing owls. 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 is 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 IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

231

Table 39. Analysis summary for western burrowing owl

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 

burrowing owl 

(Sensitive)

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 

F Rank =FP* 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, 

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.

* FP = Possibly could occur on the forest, but documented occurrences not known.

Common to All Alternatives

There are about 4,184 acres of Pinyon Juniper with Grass (0.02 percent of ERU), 190 acres of 

Great Basin Grassland (less than 1 percent of ERU), and 628 acres of Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland (3 percent of ERU) in designated wilderness. 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-DC-2, 3, SA-Wild-G-1, 2). 

Alternative A

Table 39 shows that the Great Basin Grassland and Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERUs would 

remain in good condition in the short term, and fair condition in the long term as tree and shrub 

cover would continue to increase. Understory abundance and vigor would decline commensurate 

with increased cover of trees and shrubs. In both cases, the trend would be away from desired 

conditions. 

The Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would remain in fair condition in both the short and long 

term. It would trend toward desired conditions in the short term due to expected mechanical 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

232

treatments and burning using wildfire for resource objectives, but 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. 

Table 39 also shows that for alternative A the likelihood that habitat would be a limiting to the 

viability of western burrowing owls ranges from low to moderate depending on the habitat. These 

likelihoods were derived by combining the species’ F Rank of FP with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: Great Basin Grassland and Montane/Subalpine Grassland (low

in the short term, moderate in the long term), and Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate). 

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 Great Basin 

Grassland, Montane/Subalpine Grassland, and 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. 

This is primarily because alternative A lacks plan language for the different grassland types that

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 

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, which may or may not include native plant species. This language 

does not emphasize forbs, an important food item for many wildlife species. 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 or include all the potential 

habitat for this species. 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass, this 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. In the 1987 Plan as amended, 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 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 these species (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 these species.

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

233

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 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 would decrease quality of habitat for this species. The 

overall impact of not being able effectively manage wildfires for resource objectives in 

wilderness or wilderness protections for this species is low due to the relatively small proportion 

of acres in wilderness.

Alternative B (modified)

Table 39 shows that the quality of Great Basin Grasslands and Montane/Subalpine Grassland

ERUs would improve, compared to alternative A, to good condition in both the short and long 

term. The trend for Great Basin Grassland would improve to static relative to desired conditions 

and the trend for Montane/Subalpine Grasslands would improve to toward desired conditions. 

The condition and trend for the Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU would be fair with a trend toward

desired conditions in the short term, but it would 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. Additional activities in the 

future would be required to maintain or move toward desired conditions in these ERUs.

Table 39 also shows that the likelihood that western burrowing owl would be limited by habitat 

quality would range from low to low-moderate, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining this species’ F Rank of FP with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Great Basin Grassland (low), Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low), and 

Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate) (table 9). 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 rating is because this alternative distinguishes between the grassland and pinyon 

juniper habitats on the forest and contains explicit and updated direction on the composition, 

structure, and processes for these ERUs. 

Under this alternative, wildfires may be managed for resource objectives in more areas of the 

landscape than in alternative A (including wildland-urban interface and wilderness) allowing 

increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems (FW-TerrERU-All-G-2; FW-WUI-DC-4). This could benefit western burrowing owls 

by decreasing shrubs and trees that encroach on open portions of its habitat. 

Habitat for western burrowing owls would fall within one of the three wilderness areas 

recommended under alternative B (modified): the extension to the existing Strawberry Crater 

Wilderness. There are 2,327 acres (3 percent) of Great Basin Grassland and 3,619 acres 

(1 percent) of Pinyon Juniper with Grass in this recommended wilderness. Recommended 

wilderness would reduce soil compaction, accelerated soil erosion, and vegetation damage that 

can occur from motorized use by promoting motorized vehicle use only for limited administrative 

and permitted activities (SA-RWild-DC-1, 2, 5, 6; SA-RWild-G-1, 3, 5). Mechanized uses that 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

234

maintain and do not detract from wilderness values would be allowable. However, new trails 

should be designed for non-motorized and non-mechanized activities that preserve wilderness 

character (SA-RWild-DC-6; SA-RWild-G-5). Implementation of these plan components would 

reduce disturbance to soil and vegetation from motorized or mechanized uses, which could be 

beneficial to associated species. However, limited access associated with recommended and 

designated wilderness could preclude restoration treatments that require motorized equipment for 

treatments or safety, or make them harder to do logistically. Site-specific circumstances would 

influence which or whether restoration treatments might be precluded. Delay or absence of 

restoration treatments could result in increased density of shrubs and trees or establishment and 

spread of invasive or non-native species, which could decrease the amount or quality of prey 

habitat. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. Uncharacteristic 

fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, which could 

then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. Impacts to the ERUs and western 

burrowing owl habitat from wilderness recommendation and the combination of designated 

wilderness plus recommended wilderness would be localized and are unlikely to affect the ERUs 

at the landscape level because of the small proportion affected.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except habitat for western 

burrowing owl would fall within 2 of the 13 wilderness areas recommended in alternative C.

There would be the same amount of Great Basin Grassland and Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs 

in the Strawberry Crater extension as in alternative B (modified) and 6 acres (less than 1 percent) 

of Montane/Subalpine Grassland in the Railroad Draw recommended wilderness. 

Alternative D

Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B (modified). The area covered by recommended 

wilderness in alternative B (modified) would be managed under the forestwide and management 

area direction applicable to the area in alternative D.

Findings

Considering cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants and the above analyses, all 

alternatives would provide for the viability of western burrowing owls, 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 burrowing owls, which is a Forest Service sensitive 

species. Under the plan language in all alternatives, Great Basin Grassland, Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands, and Pinyon Juniper with Grass habitat would be maintained in good to fair condition, 

which would result in effects within the expected normal fluctuations of habitat. Additional 

activities would be required in the future to maintain or move toward desired conditions in these 

ERUs.

Species with Moderate-High to Very High Likelihood of Limitation

This section evaluates the remaining coarse filter species: ferruginous hawks, beaver, highelevation species (Alberta arctic, Colorado blue columbine, corkbark fir, evening grosbeak, 

golden-crowned kinglet, Hall’s milkweed, MacGillivray’s warbler, Swainson’s thrush, and threetoed woodpecker), and Navajo Mogollon vole. These species have no fine filter threats, but the 

likelihood of habitat or likelihood of species limitations are not low, low-moderate, or moderate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

235

for all species habitat interactions in all alternatives. Species habitat relationships with likelihoods 

of moderate-high, high, and very high are further discussed. Species habitat relationships that 

result in low, low-moderate, or moderate likelihoods are not discussed further because these 

represent normal fluctuations in the habitats and there are no concerns about viability. The species 

analyzed in this section are all classified as Other forest planning species except the Navajo 

Mogollon vole. The vole is a Southwestern Region sensitive species and is discussed in more 

detail below.

Ferruginous hawk

Ferruginous hawks migrate and winter on the Coconino NF. There is no documented nesting 

(Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). The current distribution of breeding birds is restricted to 

grasslands in northern and northeastern Arizona. Ferruginous hawks range more widely in winter 

and are found throughout the state, often in agricultural areas and other open habitats (Latta et al.

1999). Ferruginous hawks are associated with Semi-desert Grassland, Great Basin Grassland, and 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERUs. These hawks need diverse early successional states of 

grasslands, low canopy cover, and herbaceous ground cover to support their prey. Prairie dog 

towns can be wintering sites as they provide a concentrated prey source. There are no speciesspecific risk factors for ferruginous hawks. The threats to the species are the same as the threats to 

the habitat.

Table 40 shows that for ferruginous hawks, Semi-desert Grassland ERU is the only habitat that 

has a high likelihood of habitat limitation and a moderate-high likelihood that this species would 

be limited by its habitat. The likelihood that habitat would be limiting to the associated species 

was derived by combining the value for habitat abundance with the value for vegetation quality. 

Under alternative A, the Semi-desert Grassland ERU would be in poor condition with a static 

trend relative to desired conditions due to continued increases in shrubs and trees and 

corresponding decreases in understory abundance and vigor. This ERU is recovering from a 

legacy of excessive grazing, OHV use, as well as ongoing recreational impacts, and drought. Poor 

conditions would remain because there are no treatment objectives, however, any activities that 

occur in this ERU would need to follow plan direction. According to the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

analysis above, the majority of the plan direction for Semi-desert Grassland ERU is in the Verde 

Valley and Savannah Management Areas. Plan direction is uneven, i.e., a portion of it is outdated 

(primarily in Verde Valley MA) and a portion of it reflects current science (Savannah MA). Plan 

language that would positively contribute to habitat quality include an emphasis on improving 

watersheds in unsatisfactory condition, which could improve vegetation and soil conditions; an 

emphasis on improving less than satisfactory range conditions. In the Savannah MA, there is an 

emphasis on letting ecosystem processes play a natural role resulting in an open vegetation 

structure, which would increase the area occupied by grasses and forbs and decrease the area 

occupied by shrubs and trees in comparison to recent historic levels. Plan language that does not 

contribute to habitat quality includes the limitations associated with using wildfires for resource 

objectives in wilderness and wildland-urban interface. This limits the use of fire as a tool to 

restore grassland conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

236

Table 40. Analysis summary for ferruginous hawk and beaver

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D 

Habitat Species Likelihood 

habitat is 

limiting

Likelihood 

species is 

limited by 

habitat

Likelihood 

habitat is 

limiting

Likelihood 

species is 

limited by 

habitat

Semi-desert 

Grassland

Ferruginous 

hawk

H M-H H M-H 

Great Basin 

Grassland

Ferruginous 

hawk

Short term: L

Long term: M

Short term: 

L, Long 

term: M

L L 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland

Ferruginous 

hawk

Short term: L

Long term: M

Short term: 

L, Long 

term: M 

L L 

Cottonwood Willow

Riparian Forest

Beaver H M-H M M 

Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

Beaver Moderate

except H in 

localized 

areas

M Moderate 

except H in 

localized areas

M 

Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest

Beaver Moderate 

except H in 

localized 

areas

M M 

Perennial 

streamcourses

Beaver H M-H H M-H 

Habitat quality is projected to remain poor under the other alternatives as well. However, a plan 

treatment objective would move this ERU toward desired conditions at a slightly faster pace than 

in alternative A in both the short and long term. See analysis on Semi-desert Grassland ERU in 

the Vegetation and Fire section in volume I of the FEIS. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

contain updated plan language for Semi-desert Grassland and the plan language limitations to 

managing wildfires for resource objectives in wildland-urban interface and wilderness have been 

removed, allowing increased opportunities to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to restore 

fire-adapted ecosystems. 

Under all alternatives, the likelihood that ferruginous hawks would be limited by its habitats is 

low to moderate-high, depending on the habitat (table 40). The likelihood that this species was 

limited by its habitat was derived by integrating the likelihood of habitat limitation with the 

species F Rank. Ferruginous hawks are migratory and have an F3 F Rank which means that it is 

uncommon in its habitat. An F3 F Rank combined with poor habitat quality results in a high 

likelihood that ferruginous hawks would be limited by Semi-desert Grassland habitat. 

All alternatives have language that would positively contribute to improvements in Semi-desert 

Grassland habitat, but plan language in alternatives B (modified), C, and D would contribute 

more to species viability than alternative A. Considering this, plus the cumulative effects for 

wildlife, fish, and plants and the Coarse Filter: Habitat for the other two habitats used by 

ferruginous hawks and the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics sections, all alternatives would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

237

provide for the viability of ferruginous hawks, although individuals may be impacted by sitespecific activities or uses. 

Beaver

Beaver are an Other planning species that occupy many of the major streams in Arizona. They are 

known from many of the tributaries of the Verde River and from East Clear Creek on the forest. 

There have been documented declines in the state (Hoffmeister 1986). Beavers are associated 

with perennial streams, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest, and Montane Willow Riparian Forest. There are no species-specific risk factors 

for beavers on the forest, and their primary threats are associated with their habitat.

Table 40 shows that for beavers, Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Perennial 

Streamcourse are the two habitats that exceed low to moderate ratings for likelihood of habitat 

limitation and likelihood that the species would be limited by its habitat. Low to moderate ratings 

are what would be expected under normal fluctuations in its environment. The likelihood that 

habitat would be limiting to the associated species was derived by combining the value for habitat 

abundance with the value for habitat quality, using the process described in the Species Viability 

section above. 

Under alternative A, the quality of perennial streams is considered poor with a static trend relative 

to desired conditions. This is because some streams have declining flows; some streams exceed 

State water quality standards, most streams have invasive or non-native aquatic species, and most 

streamside vegetation has invasive non-native plants. State water quality standards are exceeded 

in some areas due to E.coli and excessive turbidity, but these two factors are unlikely to affect 

beavers. Invasive or non-native animal species can remove aquatic vegetation, such as pondweed, 

which is one of the beaver’s food groups. Invasive non-native plants can utilize more water than 

native plants and contribute to declining base flows. Furthermore, invasive non-native plants can 

compete with the beaver’s native food plants like cottonwoods, willows, and alders and reduce 

the abundance and distribution of these species. Cottonwood Willow Riparian is considered to 

have poor quality because, even though it is only moderately departed from desired conditions, it 

has low abundance and is classified as rare. 

Continued or increased groundwater pumping on private lands adjacent to the forest may 

negatively affect the base flow of streams in beaver habitat on the forest. This is especially true 

for the Verde River, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Oak Creek because domestic use is 

high adjacent to these streams. Future droughts and increased demand for groundwater could also 

exacerbate declining base flows. In other perennial streams on the forest, surface water use is 

higher than historical conditions because the number of campgrounds has increased and there is 

increased recreational use. Groundwater pumping on private lands is outside the control of the 

forest. 

In contrast, streamflow has a static to increasing trend along lower Oak Creek (at Sedona and 

Cornville) and under the current forest plan, flow in Fossil Creek has increased due to the 

decommissioning of the power plant. Declining flows would still maintain habitat for beavers, but 

could reduce the amount of habitat available for this semi-aquatic rodent, including water for its 

lodges and for protection from predators and for the native riparian vegetation on which it feeds. 

Static to increasing flows would maintain or increase the amount and quality of habitat for 

beavers. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

238

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

alternatives (1987 Plan, pages 74, 206; 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 for beavers. 

The Verde River and Fossil Creek contain beaver habitat and portions of both streamcourses are 

designated wild and scenic rivers. Designated wild and scenic rivers are managed under approved 

comprehensive river management plans that would protect the free-flowing character and 

outstandingly remarkable values of the wild and scenic river, and consequently, protect and 

maintain beaver habitat. The Verde River has a comprehensive river management plan and a 

corresponding plan for Fossil Creek is under development as of October 2017. 

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, FWGraz-MgtApp, FW-RdsFac-G-8 ,FW-Rec-Dev-DC-9, FW-Rec-Dev-G-2, FW-TerrERU-GrassDC-2). 

As described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section above, alternative A has a focus on keeping an 

inventory of groundwater and evaluating management practices. This would allow the forest to 

adaptively manage forest uses and activities to maintain or protect stream baseflows. Alternative 

A also has language that manages and protects riparian features and functions and manages

wildfires to protect riparian habitat. Plan language would avoid or mitigate livestock impacts to 

Cottonwood Willow and other riparian vegetation by constructing livestock fences where needed; 

having allowable use not to exceed 20 percent in riparian areas; using salt to achieve proper 

livestock grazing distribution, and to manage livestock grazing to contribute toward satisfactory 

riparian conditions. 

The quality of perennial streamcourses under alternatives B (modified), C, and D would still be in 

poor condition, but the trend would slowly improve toward desired conditions, compared to 

alternative A, which would have a static trend relative to desired conditions. The quality of 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian would improve to good and also trend toward desired conditions. 

Guidance under alternatives B (modified), C, and D would protect groundwater by improving 

water yield and water infiltration, maintaining base flows, protecting water quality, and procuring 

instream flows. See Watersheds and Water section in volume I of this FEIS. Implementing this 

guidance would improve the ability of the soil to resist erosion, infiltrate water, and recycle 

nutrients. Riparian vegetation would improve along streambanks, wetlands, and springs, aiding in 

the ability to filter sediments; capture bedload; aid floodplain development; and improve floodwater retention, groundwater recharge, and intermittent and perennial streamflow. 

Although there are three recommended wildernesses in alternative B (modified), 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. Alternative C has 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

239

the same effects as alternative B (modified) except there are 233 acres of Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest, 662 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, and 438 acres of 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest in 8 recommended wildernesses: Barbershop, Black Mountain, 

Cedar Bench, Cimarron-Boulder, Davey’s, Deadwood Draw, East Clear Creek, and Hackberry.

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified), except there is no recommended 

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. 

Under all alternatives, the likelihood that beavers would be limited by their habitat is low to 

moderate-high, depending on the habitat. The likelihood that beavers are limited by habitat was 

derived by integrating the likelihood of habitat limitation with the beaver’s F Rank of F3, which 

means that it is uncommon in its habitat. An F3 F Rank combined with poor habitat quality 

results in a moderate-high likelihood that beavers would be limited by perennial streamcourses in 

all alternatives and by Cottonwood Willow Riparian habitat in alternative A. There would be a 

moderate likelihood that beavers would be limited by Cottonwood Willow Riparian habitat in 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D. 

As described above, all alternatives have language that would maintain or protect beaver habitat 

even in spite of groundwater pumping outside of Forest Service control. Considering the 

cumulative effects for wildlife, fish, and plants, and the analyses under the Wildlife and Plant 

Issues and Topics and the Coarse Filter: Habitat for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Montane 

Willow (the other two habitats used by beavers) sections, all alternatives would provide for the

viability of beavers although individuals animals may be impacted by site-specific activities or 

uses. Plan language in alternatives B (modified), C, and D would contribute more to species 

viability than alternative A.

High-elevation Species 

Alberta arctic, Colorado blue columbine, Corkbark fir, Evening grosbeak, Goldencrowned kinglet, Hall’s milkweed, MacGillivray’s warbler, Swainson’s thrush, and 

Three-toed woodpecker

These species are grouped together because they share similar high-elevation habitats. Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, Spruce-Fir, Montane/Subalpine 

ERUs, Aspen, Mixed Broadleaf Riparian Forests, Montane Willow Riparian Forests, and Springs 

are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. All of these species are classified as 

Other planning species. 

Alberta arctic occurs in isolated populations on sky island peaks in Arizona. The population of 

this butterfly on the San Francisco Peaks, including Schultz Pass, is locally common during its 

spring to early summer flight. Alberta arctic occurs between 8,000 to 9,500 feet and is generally 

restricted to grasslands and aspen stands, especially moist wet meadows. The larvae feed on 

various grasses. It is associated with Montane/Subalpine Grassland ERU, Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire ERU, Aspen, and Springs. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

240

Colorado blue columbine has been collected on the San Francisco Peaks and Schultz Pass areas 

on the Coconino NF and on the North Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab NF. Colorado blue 

columbine is associated with Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and Spruce Fir ERUs. 

Corkbark fir, distinguished by its whitish corky bark, is restricted to the Rocky Mountains of 

southern Colorado and the Southwest. Its distribution on the Coconino NF is on the San 

Francisco Peaks. Corkbark fir is associated with the Spruce Fir ERU, which on the Coconino NF 

is only found on the San Francisco Peaks.

Evening grosbeak has a wide range across the United States and Canada. Arizona is at the 

southern edge of the range for evening grosbeaks (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017a). The 

Coconino NF is one of the few places in Arizona where it breeds. They are uncommon and erratic 

summer residents in areas including and between the San Francisco Peaks, Kendrick Mountain, 

and Flagstaff. Evening grosbeak is a migratory bird associated with the deciduous tree component 

in Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, and Spruce Fir ERUs. 

Evening grosbeaks are dependent on deciduous trees such as aspen, big tooth maple, and Gambel 

oak, and breed in low densities. 

Golden-crowned kinglet has a wide range across North America, extending from Canada to 

Mexico (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017b). The highest densities in Arizona for goldencrowned kinglets are found in the White Mountains and San Francisco Peaks areas. Surveys for 

the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005) found this bird throughout 

their previously described range. Golden-crowned kinglet is a migratory bird associated with 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, and Spruce Fir ERUs. 

These insectivorous birds occur in cool and often moist forests with closed canopies, often at the 

edges of clearings. They prefer dense old-growth trees. They also nest in cool montane or 

snowmelt drainages frequently containing various pines, firs, maples, oak, and aspen. 

Hall’s milkweed is known from southern Wyoming; portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, 

Nevada; and northern Arizona, where it occurs sporadically throughout its range (Cronquist et al.

1984). It has been collected in the Hart Prairie area and on Kendrick Mountain. Hall’s milkweed 

occurs in the Montane/Subalpine Grassland and in Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire ERUs. 

MacGillivray’s warbler occurs in western Canada, the western United States, and Mexico. 

Arizona is at the southern edge of its breeding range (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). They 

occur at low densities with isolated populations in Arizona. Occupied sites include: Inner Basin of 

the San Francisco Peaks, side drainages of upper Oak Creek including West Fork of Oak Creek, 

and possibly near Happy Jack. Researchers have documented local extinctions along the 

Mogollon Rim, possibly due to a combination of factors leading to the decline in deciduous 

vegetation such as aspen, maple, and oak. Potential causes are drought, heavy elk browsing, and 

missed fire return intervals, resulting in a lack of early seral vegetation (Corman and WiseGervaise 2005). MacGillivray’s warblers are most frequently found nesting along or near 

mountain drainages, springs, or slopes with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees and 

shrubs. This migratory bird feeds and nests in short dense vegetation and is rarely found above 

the shrub layer. It is associated with the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Montane Willow 

Riparian Forests and the Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, 

and Spruce Fir ERUs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

241

Swainson’s thrush is a migratory bird that breeds in numerous locations in North America and 

winters mostly in Mexico and northern South America. The Coconino NF is one of the few places 

in Arizona where Swainson’s thrush breeds. Swainson’s thrush occur in cool moist locations in 

the Spruce-fir ERU on the San Francisco Peaks. This species needs dense clumps of trees

punctuated by openings that support low light tolerant plants. They prefer edges that have dense 

ground and understory vegetation. They nest in shrubs, low in coniferous trees or thickets of 

deciduous shrubs or conifer saplings.

Three-toed woodpeckers occur year-round across Canada and Alaska, as well as the mountainous 

areas of much of the western United States. This species has limited distribution in Arizona, 

where it is at near the southernmost extent of their range. In Arizona, these woodpecker 

populations appear to be fairly stable with no obvious loss in distribution in the state. The 

Coconino NF is one of the few places in Arizona where they breed. Three-toed woodpeckers 

reach their highest abundance in forests dominated by Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, and 

subalpine fir (Spruce-Fir ERU) and also use Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Mixed 

Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs and conifer drainages. They are primary cavity nesters, 

preferring snags over live trees. 

There are no species-specific risk factors for these species. The threats to the species are the same 

as the threats to the habitat.

The bold faced items in table 41 are areas of potential viability concern for high-elevation coarse 

filter species. These items exceed low to moderate ratings for likelihoods that the species would 

be limited by its habitat and are discussed below. These ratings are influenced by the rarity of the 

species, rarity of the habitat, as well as the quality of the habitat. The likelihoods that habitat 

would be limiting to specific species were derived by combining the species F Rank with the 

value for likelihood that the habitat would be limiting, using the process described in the Species 

Viability section above. Low to moderate ratings indicate that the alternatives would result in 

effects no more substantial than normal variability in the habitats for the respective species.

Consequently, there is no risk to viability and viability is assured. 

Table 41. Analysis summary for high-elevation 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

Alberta arctic

(Other) 

F Rank = F2*

MSG Good at short term 

then fair, away

Short term: M

Long term: 

M-H

Good, toward M

MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: 

M-H 

Long term: H

Fair, static M-H

Aspen Poor, away H Poor, Away H

Springs Fair**, static M-H Fair**, static M-H
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

242

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

Colorado blue 

columbine

Swainson’s thrush

(Other) 

MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: 

H 

Long term: 

VH 

Fair, static H

F Rank = F1* SF Fair, toward VH Fair, toward VH

Hall’s milkweed

(Other)

MSG Good at short term 

then fair, away

Short term: M

Long term: H

Good, toward M

F Rank = F1* MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: 

H 

Long term: 

VH

Fair, static H

Corkbark fir

(Other) 

F Rank = F3*

SF Fair, toward M-H Fair, toward M-H

Evening grosbeak

(Other) 

F Rank = F3*

MCFF Fair, trending 

toward at short term

then static at long 

term 

M Low objective: 

Fair, toward 

then static

High objective: 

Good, toward 

then static

Low objective: M

High Objective: L

MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: M

Long term: 

M-H

Fair, static M

SF Fair, toward M-H Fair, toward M-H

Aspen Poor, away M-H Poor, Away M-H

Golden-crowned 

kinglet

Three-toed 

woodpecker

(Other) 

MCFF Fair, trending 

toward at short term 

then static at long 

term 

M Low objective: 

Fair, toward 

then static

High objective: 

Good, toward 

then static

Low objective: M

High Objective: L

F Rank = F3* MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: M

Long term: 

M-H

Fair, static M 

SF Fair, toward M-H Fair, toward M-H
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

243

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

MacGillivray’s 

warbler

(Other) 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

L-M Good, slowly 

toward

L-M

F Rank = F4* MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

L-M Good, static to 

slowly toward

L-M

MCFF Fair, trending 

toward at short term 

then static at long 

term 

L-M Low objective: 

Fair, toward 

then static

High objective: 

Good, toward 

then static

Low objective: LM 

High Objective: L

MCIF Fair, trending away 

at short term then 

poor trending away 

at long term

Short term: LM 

Long term: M 

Fair, static L-M

SF Fair, toward M Fair, toward M

Management Effect Springs and 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.

MCFF, MCIF, SF, MSG, Aspen, 

MBDRF, and 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.

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. F4 = Common on the 

forest within 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.

Under alternative A, Montane/Subalpine Grassland and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs 

transition from good (Montane/Subalpine Grassland) and fair (Mixed Conifer with Infrequent 

Fire) quality in the short term to fair (Montane/Subalpine Grasslands) and poor (Mixed Conifer 

with Infrequent Fire) quality in the long term because fire exclusion is expected to continue. 

Aspen would be in poor condition due to widespread death of mature aspen trees, chronic 

browsing by ungulates, and advanced conifer reproduction due to fire exclusion. Death of aspen 

trees was due to a combination of a significant drought event, a long-term drought, and bouts of 

defoliation from western tent caterpillars. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

244

Lack of fire in fire-adapted ERUs adjacent to Montane/Subalpine Grassland would allow trees 

and shrubs to continue to encroach on the edges of the grassland. Lack of fire would contribute to 

an increase in canopy cover in Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire. This could be limiting to the 

associated species including aspen because there would be a corresponding decline in openings, 

less understory, and fewer herbaceous or shrub species. This could reduce but not eliminate 

habitat for herbaceous species such as Hall’s milkweed, Colorado blue columbine, or grasses that 

are essential for Alberta arctic butterflies because they are the larval host plants. The understory 

also provides feeding and nesting habitat for Swainson’s thrush and feeding habitat for goldencrowned kinglets. Lack of fire in Spruce-Fir would result in low amounts of early seral species 

like aspen, high tree density, and low amounts of herbaceous vegetation but Spruce-Fir would 

still trend toward desired conditions because its natural fire regime is high-severity infrequent 

fire, so these characteristics would be expected. Snags preferred by three-toed woodpeckers 

would be expected to occur throughout the ERU due to density-related mortality. 

The Coarse Filter: Habitat analyses above point out that fire exclusion could continue in some 

places under alternative A. Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be 

used in Montane/Subalpine Grassland, Aspen, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, and SpruceFir but there is no provision for using wildfires managed for resource objectives in the wildlandurban 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 to 112). This 

plan language limits the restoration of fire as a natural process in the wildland-urban interface and 

in wilderness, and tree and shrub 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, which could damage or remove habitats for these species. 

However, where applied, the use of prescribed or wildfire would maintain grassland conditions, 

aspen, or small openings in forested ecosystems, and benefit habitat for the associated species. 

Alternatives B (modified), C and D remove the plan language limitations that restrict the use of 

wildfire managed for resource benefits in designated wilderness allowing wildfire to play its 

natural role in wilderness where it is feasible to do so (SA-Wild-DC-4). In contrast to alternative 

A, these alternatives remove the restrictions that prohibit the use of wildfires managed for 

resource benefits in the wildland-urban interface. This could facilitate the use of fire for 

restoration or fuels reduction and would help maintain openings, improve resilience, and reduce 

vulnerability to uncharacteristic fire in these areas. In addition, alternatives B (modified), C, and 

D promote characteristic disturbances as mechanisms that shape mixed conifer (FW-TerrERUMC-All-DC-1; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10). Consequently, the trend for 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire improves from away from desired conditions in alternative A 

to a static trend relative to desired conditions. This would contribute to the viability of the 

associated species by maintaining the habitat within expected natural fluctuations. In contrast to 

alternative A, alternatives B (modified), C, and D have desired conditions for two mixed conifer 

types, recognizing that the natural disturbances and distribution of these types vary and result in 

distinct composition and structures. Plan components support fire regimes that would maintain 

and support aspen in Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (FWTerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-5; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-4, 5). The condition and trend for 

Spruce-Fir remains similar to alternative A because there are no treatment objectives and most of 

the ERU is within wilderness, in which treatments are not expected to occur. In the absence of 

large-scale fire, aspen and understory vegetation is expected to remain deficit except in areas 

where small-scale disturbances occur. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

245

About 81 percent of Spruce-Fir ERU occurs within designated wilderness. All alternatives 

recognize wilderness and incorporate appropriate direction (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SAWild-DC-1 to 8; SA-Wild-S-1, 2; SA-Wild-G-1 to 7). Wilderness direction provides an added 

layer of protection for the Spruce-Fir ERU, such as prohibiting motorized and mechanized travel, 

which would reduce accelerated erosion. Management would emphasize wilderness recreation 

and watershed condition while maintaining wilderness resource values. Livestock grazing would 

be managed under congressional guidelines for grazing in wilderness (1987 Plan, page 105; FSM 

2323.22), and therefore, could still occur if approved under site-specific environmental analysis. 

Corrective measures would be taken if overuse causes unacceptable resource damage and the 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness would be closely monitored to determine whether corrective measures 

are needed (1987 Plan, page 105; SA-Wild-DC-1; SA-Wild-G-1, 2). For fire management in the 

Kachina Peaks Wilderness, the objective is to hold fires to 10 acres or less while choosing 

suppression tactics that minimize damage to soil and water resources (1987 Plan, page 112). This 

is repeated for the Inner Basin MA (1987 Plan, page 192). This guidance does not acknowledge 

the reference condition within the Spruce-Fir ERU where infrequent, high-severity standreplacing fire was within the historic range of variability. The acreage limits would be difficult to 

obtain, especially with the presence of wilderness that limits suppression options, departed 

conditions, and stand structure, and thus, would not be beneficial for this ERU. 

The Spruce-Fir ERU occurs within the Inner Basin Management Area for all alternatives. Soil 

and vegetation conditions would be maintained or improved through the following plan direction: 

Recreation in the Inner Basin is restricted to day use (1987 Plan page 192; MA-InBsn-G-7); 

grazing is not allowed and the area is not part of any grazing allotment (1987 Plan, page 192; 

Chapter 4 of Revised Plan, Grazing Suitability, table 12); and the use of recreational livestock is 

prohibited above Doyle Saddle and above the watershed cabin (1987 Plan, page 192; MA-PeaksS-1; MA-InBsn-S-1). As described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat analysis for the Spruce-fir ERU, 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D have desired conditions for Spruce-Fir which would promote 

structure and species composition that both reflect and support natural disturbance regimes and 

consist of multiple species (including aspen and corkbark fir), in a variety of age classes. 

The Coarse Filter: Habitat analyses for the grassland ERUs point out that alternative A provides 

guidance to maintain and improve grasslands, including removing invading overstory, stabilizing 

gullies, scarifying soils, appropriate seeding, controlling livestock, raising the water table, 

reducing road and motorized use impacts, and re-introducing fire (1987 Plan, pages 159, 160, 

164, 206-87 to 206-88). There are guidelines regarding relocation, obliteration, or closure of 

roads that are damaging or could damage meadows (1987 Plan, pages 206-70, 206-77, 78, 206-

116). Alternatives B (modified), C, and D clearly distinguish between different grassland types. 

Grassland 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). A guideline would require managers to protect or enhance grassland 

composition, structure, and productivity, and soil function (FW-TerrERU-Grass-G- 2). 

Implementation of plan language in all four alternatives would maintain and improve grassland 

habitat, which would also contribute to the viability of Hall’s milkweed and Alberta arctic. 

All alternatives provide guidance for the management of aspen, which is an early seral species in 

Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire, and Spruce-Fir 

ERUs. The intent of the guidance for all alternatives is to promote and protect aspen regeneration 

and emphasize age class diversity (1987 Plan, pages 141 to 144; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-DC-1 to 

3; FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-G-1). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

246

All alternatives have plan direction for the Inner Basin and West Fork of Oak Creek, habitat for 

MacGillivray’s warblers. All alternatives would contribute to the viability of this species by 

limiting dispersed recreation use to day use by foot or bicycles only; not allowing use by 

livestock or recreational livestock, and limiting vehicle access (1987 Plan, page 192; MA-InBsnS-1, MA-InBsn-G-5, 7). All alternatives would not allow horse and pack stock except for limited 

administrative use on the West Fork of Oak Creek (1987 Plan, page 90; MA-RedRock-S-9). 

These are popular recreation areas and dispersed recreation use is substantial. Grazing by 

livestock, horses and packstock can reduce the abundance or vigor of vegetation. Dispersed 

recreation and motorized use can result in localized areas of accelerated soil erosion and 

vegetation damage, which could reduce regeneration potential of understory species. These 

limitations would reduce impacts to and could promote the growth of the thick shrub layer or 

thickets MacGillivray’s warblers and Swainson’s thrushes need for nesting; and grasses needed 

by the larvae for Alberta arctic.

Springs are one of the habitats for Alberta arctic. Springs would provide moist meadow 

environments and grasses preferred by this high-elevation species. Highly developed or 

accessible springs would be unlikely to provide these conditions, so only good or fair quality 

springs would provide habitat. The Coarse Filter: Habitat analysis for springs points out that 

alternative A emphasizes riparian recovery, protection of riparian regeneration, and some 

restrictions on utility lines or roads to minimize the extent of and magnitude of riparian impact, 

but lacks focus or emphasis on springs. Alternative A would have less potential for improvement 

to the functional condition of springs than the other alternatives. The other alternatives contribute 

more to the maintenance and sustainability of the springs and the viability of the associated 

species than alternative A because plan components address spring composition, function, and 

processes and non-native or invasive animals and plants, which can negatively affect plant 

diversity, abundance, and vigor. Springs would have a static trend under all alternatives. 

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 the high-elevation species, although individuals may be impacted by 

site-specific activities or uses, for the following reasons. All alternatives generally maintain fair 

and good quality habitats for the high-elevation species except aspen and the long-term condition 

in Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire. Fair and good quality habitats maintain composition, 

structure, and function, and contribute to the viability of the associated species. Fire exclusion 

and the lack of characteristic disturbances are the primary factors in departures of these highelevation habitats (except for springs). Plan language in alternative A allows the use of wildfire 

managed for resource benefits in areas outside the wildland-urban interface, and does not limit its 

use outside of wilderness; however, plan language in the other alternatives removes the limiting 

language. This plan language allows the use of wildfire managed for resource benefits in more 

areas of the landscape than alternative A and would promote aspen, grasslands, herbaceous and 

shrubby understory, and openings in more areas than alternative A.

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D contribute more to the viability of high-elevation species

than alternative A, primarily because plan components would shift condition and trend for Mixed 

Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU from fair and away from desired conditions to fair and static

relative to desired conditions; there are specific plan components for Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland ERU, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERU, and Springs; and there is updated plan 

language for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, which better provides for aspen. The two mixed 

conifer ERUs are separated based on slope in alternative A, rather than ecological differences 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

247

such as composition and fire return intervals as in the other alternatives. Alternative A combines 

different grasslands, whereas the other alternatives provide plan components for three unique 

grassland ERUs. Alternative A has one management area that combines all riparian areas, 

whereas the other alternatives have riparian area-specific direction including for springs. 

Navajo Mogollon vole

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Hoffmeister (1986) has delineated the range for this vole from Navajo Mountain southward to the 

western part of the Mogollon Plateau from near Mormon Lake westward to the vicinity of 

Williams. Locations have been reported from 3,800 to 9,700 feet in elevation, with a number of 

locations around the San Francisco Peaks area and also in Garland and Government prairies on 

the Kaibab NF (Ganey and Chambers 2011). Occupied sites include the San Francisco Peaks, 

Sawmill Springs, Long Valley Ranger Station, Pivot Rock Spring, Lee Johnson Springs, and Kehl 

Spring Campground. 

Habitat Quality

The Navajo Mogollon vole is associated with the Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent 

Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERUs. There is an 

estimated 959,348 acres of these ERUs on the forest. It inhabits grassy areas in these ERUs and 

prefers a dense understory. It is positively associated with shrub cover and combined cover of live 

and dead vegetation, and negatively associated with bare ground (Ganey and Chambers 2011). 

Risk Factors

There are no known species threats. Threats to the species are equivalent to threats to the habitat.

Environmental Consequences

Table 42 summarizes the viability analysis for Navajo Mogollon vole. 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. 

Additional information on the associated ERUs can be found above in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

248

Table 42. Analysis summary for Navajo Mogollon vole

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

D 

Species, status, 

and F Rank

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

Navajo Mogollon 

vole

F Rank = F2* 

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: 

Low objective 

long term: M-H 

High objective: 

M-H 

MCFF Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static at 

long term

M-H Low objective: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

Fair, static

High objective: 

Good, toward in 

short term then 

Good, static

Low objective: 

M-H 

High objective: 

M 

MCIF Fair, away at 

short term then 

Poor, away at 

long term

Short term: MH 

Long term: H

Fair, Static M-H 

Openings 

in PJW

Good, Static M Good, 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.

*F2 = Rare on the forest within its habitat – occupies a small portion of its habitat.

Common to All Alternatives

About 43,035 acres of habitat for voles occurs in eight designated wildernesses: Fossil Springs 

Wilderness (4,601 acres), Kachina Peaks Wilderness (6,166 acres), Munds Mountain Wilderness 

(678 acres), Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness (13,504 acres), Strawberry Crater Wilderness 

(6,030 acres), Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (5,998 acres), West Clear Creek Wilderness 

(5,923 acres), and Wet Beaver (135 acres). Table 43 displays which Navajo Mogollon vole habitat 

is present in each of these wilderness areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

249

Table 43. Vole habitat in designated wilderness (acres)

ERU

Wilderness name Ponderosa 

Pine 

Mixed Conifer 

Frequent Fire

Mixed Conifer 

Infrequent Fire

Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland

Total

Fossil Springs 4,589 12 4,601

Kachina Peaks 114 6,052 6,166

Munds Mountain 328 350 678

Red Rock-Secret 

Mountain

12,341 598 565 13,504

Strawberry Crater 2,515 3,515 6,030

Sycamore Canyon 5,580 180 238 5,998

West Clear Creek 5,479 444 5,923

Wet Beaver 59 76 135

Total 31,005 778 6,052 5,200 43,035

Designated wilderness areas would be managed according to applicable laws, policy, and Forest 

Plan direction to preserve wilderness resource values and wilderness quality, and to emphasize 

wilderness recreation (1987 Plan, pages 105 to 112; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11; SA-Wild-DC-S-1, 2; 

SA-Wild-DC-G-1 to 7). Wilderness designation limits most active vegetation management 

because motorized and mechanized use is not allowed. Motorized and mechanized access can kill 

or damage plants, can degrade the habitat through soil compaction and soil loss, and can 

introduce non-native species that compete with native plants for resources. This can negatively 

affect the reproduction and survival of individual plants or populations. Ground-disturbing 

activities are primarily confined to main trails, trailheads, and key points of interest at which 

invasive species introduction and establishment, or accelerated erosion could occur depending on 

the level of use. The lack of ground-disturbing activities elsewhere would be beneficial by 

reducing the risk of invasive plant introduction and dispersal by motorized or mechanized use. 

However, limited access associated with designated wilderness could preclude restoration 

treatments that require motorized equipment for treatments or for safety or make them harder to 

do logistically. Lack of restoration treatments could result in missed fire return intervals, an 

unnatural increase in fuels, increased density of shrubs and trees, or establishment and spread of 

invasive or non-native species. This could slow the trend toward desired conditions or increase 

the risk of uncharacteristic fires in localized areas more so than in the other alternatives. 

Uncharacteristic fire could facilitate the spread or establishment of invasive or non-native species, 

which could then alter area hydrology, fire regime, and biodiversity. 

Alternative A

Table 42 shows that 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

250

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. Understory diversity and abundance 

would increase in open areas created by treatments, providing additional food and cover for 

Navajo Mogollon voles. 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire would transition from fair condition with a trend away from 

desired conditions in the short term to poor condition with a trend away from desired conditions 

in the long term because fire exclusion is expected to continue. This would result in increasing 

tree density and canopy cover with a corresponding decline in openings and herbaceous and 

shrubby understory that provides food and cover for Navajo Mogollon voles. 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland would remain in good condition, maintain a static trend relative to 

desired conditions, and maintain habitat for voles.

Table 42 also shows that the likelihood that habitat would be a limiting factor for Navajo 

Mogollon voles would range from moderate to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by using the process in table 9 and combining the species’ F Rank of F2 with the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: PP (moderate in the short term and lowmoderate in the long term for the low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment 

objective), MCFF (moderate), MCIF (moderate in short term, high in the long term), and PJW 

(low) (see Coarse Filter Habitat Findings above). 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, 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and 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. 

Plan objectives in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire would move treated 

areas toward more open conditions, which would increase the abundance, vigor and variety of 

herbaceous understory species, and consequently, improve food and cover conditions. 

For Pinyon Juniper Woodland, alternative A does not distinguish between Pinyon Juniper types, 

which differ from each other in composition, structure, and processes. Alternative A provides 

little direction on desired conditions for these ERUs, lumped them instead into two Pinyon 

Juniper management areas (Management Areas 7 and 8), with plan direction varying by slope. 

Consequently, vegetation structure may not be distributed across the landscape in natural patterns 

of abundance which could negatively affect the distribution of suitable vole habitat.

Prescribed fire and wildfires managed for resource objectives may be used in vole habitat, 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 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

251

would also be increased potential for uncharacteristic fire in the wildland-urban interface and 

wilderness portions of these ERUs. This would decrease the abundance and quality of habitat for 

voles.

In addition to the above, habitat for Navajo Mogollon voles could be negatively impacted by the 

removal of grassy understory due to excessive livestock grazing. It was assumed that their 

habitats are adapted to natural background levels of herbivory. The negative impact would be 

under the conditions outside the range of variation to which the vole is adapted. Consequently, 

food resources could be negatively impacted. Substantial amounts of understory removal could 

increase the amount of bare ground and increase the likelihood that voles would be detected by 

predators. 

Allowable use guidelines are established 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). 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 B (modified)

Table 42 shows that the vegetation condition and trends for Ponderosa Pine and Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland are the same as in alternative A. The low treatment objective in Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire would result in the same condition and trend as in alternative A, but as more acres 

are treated under the high treatment objective, the condition would improve to good, with a slow 

trend toward desired conditions. Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire remains in fair condition in 

all alternatives, but the static trend is an improvement compared to the away trend in alternative 

A.

The likelihood that the Navajo Mogollon voles would be limited by habitat ranges from moderate 

to moderate-high, an improvement over alternative A. These likelihoods were derived by using 

the process in table 9 and combining the species’ F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: PP (moderate in the short term and low-moderate in the long 

term for the low treatment objective; low-moderate for high treatment objective), Mixed Conifer 

with Frequent Fire (moderate for low objective, low for high objective), Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire (moderate), and Pinyon Juniper Woodland (low) (see Coarse Filter Habitat 

Findings above). 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 2 for all the habitats associated with Navajo Mogollon 

vole. 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

252

The plan language that limits the use of wildfires managed for resource objectives in wilderness 

and wildland-urban interface in alternative A is eliminated in alternative B (modified).

Consequently, this would be beneficial for voles because they live in a fire-adapted ecosystem 

and the elimination of this language restores one management tool that could maintain openings 

in these portions of vole habitat. 

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 make the voles easier for predators to 

detect due to lower cover. 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 conditions that provide food and cover. 

In addition to the 43,033 acres of vole habitat in designated wilderness, there are an additional 

1,911 acres in recommended wilderness: Abineau (415 acres), Strawberry Crater addition

(634 acres), and Davey’s (863 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- RWild-DC-1, 2, 3, FW- RWild-G-3). This would protect Navajo 

Mogollon vole 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 sitespecific 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 these ERUs. The magnitude of the effect on potential habitat depends on what 

needs to be restored in these recommended wilderness areas, what tools might be needed for 

restoration, and whether access in the areas adjacent to the recommended wilderness areas is 

sufficient to allow for safe use of prescribed or managed fire if needed.

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified) except there are additional acres of 

recommended wilderness that contain habitat for this species. In addition to the 43,033 acres of 

vole habitat for designated wilderness, there are a total of 18,692 acres in recommended 

wilderness: Abineau (415 acres), Strawberry Crater addition (634 acres), Davey’s (863 acres), 

Barbershop (1,132 acres), Black Mountain (947 acres), Cedar Bench (1,053 acres), CimarronBoulder (3,432 acres), Deadwood Draw (1,167 acres), East Clear Creek (1,727 acres), Hackberry 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

253

(4,200 acres), Railroad Draw (1,205 acres), Tin Can (1,253 acres), and Walker Mountain 

(665 acres). 

Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 

The area covered by recommended wilderness in alternative B (modified) would be managed 

under the forestwide and management area direction applicable to the area in alternative D.

Findings

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

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

viability of Navajo Mogollon vole, 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 Navajo Mogollon vole, which is a Forest Service sensitive species. Favorable habitat 

conditions for voles (i.e., fair to good conditions, improving conditions, static trends or trends 

toward desired conditions) would prevail in Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, 

and Pinyon Juniper Woodland under all alternatives. All alternatives have plan language that 

would balance permitted livestock numbers with range capacity, but the action alternatives have 

updated language that would consider food and cover for a variety of wildlife species. 

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

A, primarily because plan components would improve the habitat trend for Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire ERU from away to static, improve Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU under 

the high treatment objectives, has updated language for understory and range management, and 

has plan components for the two mixed conifer and the pinyon juniper ERUs. The two mixed 

conifer and three pinyon juniper ERUs are separated based on slope in alternative A rather than 

ecological differences, such as composition and fire return intervals, as in the other alternatives. 

Alternative A would allow wildland fire managed for resource objectives in areas outside of 

wildland-urban interface and in areas outside of wilderness without limitation. When conditions 

allow, use of this tool could reduce the increased canopy cover and stand density and reduced 

amount of openings that result from fire exclusion. In contrast to alternative A, alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D increase the area in which wildfires could be managed improve the 

capability of managers to manage wildfires for resource objectives by removing plan language 

that limits its use in wildland-urban interface and in wilderness when conditions allow. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

254

Fine Filter: Introduction

The previous Coarse Filter Species Findings section addressed those species whose needs and 

threats were addressed through habitat-related plan components. However, these general plan 

components do not address all the needs or threats for all species. The following section analyzes 

the remaining species that require additional fine filter plan components (in addition to the coarse 

filter plan components) to meet their specific needs. The analysis of alternatives for threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, and other planning species focuses on the most relevant threats and 

programs areas, that is, those risks and program areas that are expected to have the greatest 

impact on each species or species group. 

This section applies the fine filter analysis process that is described above in the Analysis 

subsection of the Species Viability section. Of particular importance, the Analysis subsection 

provides detailed information and definitions on the factors and ratings (e.g., likelihood that the 

species is limited by its habitat and management effect) that are used in the fine filter analysis for 

every species. See tables Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 for an explanation of 

the factors and ratings that are used to develop the analysis summary tables in this section.

Fine Filter: Threatened and Endangered Species 

Detailed information for the habitats is located in volume I of this FEIS by resource, and in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section above. 

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

species (threatened and endangered) as well as proposed or candidate species, and assesses how 

species viability would be maintained under each alternative. Viability is already a concern for 

these species as indicated by their listing under the Endangered Species Act.

All alternatives will follow guidance from approved recovery plans, strive toward implementation 

of conservation actions under 7(a)(1), and will continue to consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to resolve conflicts with listed species during project design and implementation (see At 

Risk Species topic in the section on Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics). The Biological 

Assessment provides an in-depth analysis of these effects on all species and their critical habitat, 

where applicable (USDA Forest Service 2017c). 

Alternative A Findings – Analysis Process

The existing Forest Plan has been consulted on several times since the initial plan was signed in 

1987. Most recently, a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared in May of 2011, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service responded with a Biological Opinion (BO) in March of 2012. Because of the 

similarity of approach, the 2012 BO incorporated by reference the previous consultation on the 

LRMP completed in 2005. The BA for that consultation had been completed in 2004, and the 

resulting BO was issued in June 2005. 

Since the 2011/2012 consultation was concluded, the Coconino LRMP has been amended twice. 

A decision to amend the LRMP for the Travel Management Rule (TMR) was made in November 

2011. While this amendment occurred before the 2012 BO was issued, the 2011 BA was 

completed earlier and did not include an analysis for the Travel Management Rule project. The 

TMR project decision designated a motorized system of roads and trails, identified areas where 

off-road vehicle use for motorized big game retrieval would be allowed, and identified dispersed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

255

camping areas where motor vehicle use is allowed within 300 feet along one or both sides of 

designated roads.

The second LRMP amendment addressed cultural resource protection and was completed in 

November of 2015. This amendment removed two standards and guidelines relating to inventory 

of cultural resource sites. This administrative decision would have no effects to any listed species.

For each of the listed species in the following sections, changes made to the LRMP from the 

TMR decision are evaluated to determine if the findings for species made in the 2011 BA are still 

valid. 

Threatened and Endangered: Amphibians and Birds

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (CLF) 

Affected Environment 

Since the Chiricahua leopard frog was listed in 2002, the forest has taken a number of actions to 

contribute toward recovery of the species. For range allotment environmental analysis and any 

other projects within the range of the frog, the forest considers needs for the species in project 

design, analyzes effects of the project, and consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service as needed. 

Site-specific actions have usually been done in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service

and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. For example, drought emergency response was 

initiated in 2002, which included: hauling water to occupied sites that were drying up, assisting 

Fish and Wildlife Service with salvage of frogs that were taken in to captivity, and, temporary 

removal of livestock from the Fossil Allotment in 2002 and several years following. Other actions 

included: deepening tanks in 2004 so they hold water longer during drought years; constructing 

and maintaining ungulate exclosure fences in a portion of 5 Chiricahua leopard frog breeding 

sites in 2005, 2013, and 2014; controlling crayfish, predators, and non-native fish in 2005; 

controlling erosion in core breeding sites in 2006 and 2014 and at two earthen stock tanks in 2005 

and 2008, respectively; earthen stock tank cleaning and maintenance in various years; 

establishing photographic monitoring sites before and after livestock use in 2015 for tanks and 

movement corridors within critical habitat; and conducting annual monitoring and survey of 

potential Chiricahua leopard frog sites. The forest would continue to implement these types of 

actions in the future.

Distribution

Chiricahua leopard frog populations are known to be in only a portion of their former range on 

the forest. They historically occupied various locations in the Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River, 

West Clear Creek, and Upper Clear Creek 5th code watersheds. Since 2008, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department have been reintroducing Chiricahua leopard 

frogs to the Buckskin Hills area. As of the end of 2015, four stock tanks within the Buckskin Hills 

area were occupied. All are within Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub and Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland ERUs. All historical and current Chiricahua leopard frog sites are within Recovery 

Unit 5 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). There are 566,548 acres of Recovery Unit 5 on 

the forest. Within recovery units, the Fish and Wildlife Service delineated management areas 

around extant populations and high potential recovery sites, based on watershed boundaries. 

There are two management areas delineated on the forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007a). The West Mogollon Management Area includes currently occupied sites and critical 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

256

habitat in the Buckskin Hills area. The East Clear Creek Management Area has the potential to 

support a metapopulation and contains historically occupied habitat. 

Habitat

These frogs breed in slack waters in a variety of natural and manmade aquatic systems. Habitat 

includes perennial streams and springs and the following riparian areas: Wetlands and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous and Montane Willow Riparian Forests. Although there are 9 acres of 

Cottonwood Willow within the East Clear Creek MA, this riparian forest type is lower in 

elevation than current and historical habitat on the forest, and therefore, is not considered 

potential habitat on the forest. 

Table 44. Acreages of aquatic/riparian and terrestrial ERUs within Chiricahua leopard frog 

management areas on the Coconino NF 

ERU West Mogollon MA Acres East Clear MA Acres

Aquatic/Riparian:

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest* 0 9 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 625 0 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 57 1,895

Wetland/Cienega/Lakes 8 376

Terrestrial:

Interior Chaparral 301 0 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 0 37,315

Montane Subalpine Grassland 0 706

Pinyon Juniper with Grass 0 1,540

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 55,913 0 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (Persistent) 8,103 2,036

Ponderosa Pine 33,403 69,210

Total MA Acres: 98,402 113,278

*Not considered potential habitat for the CLF.

Critical Habitat: The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog in March 2011, and final critical habitat became effective on April 19, 2012 (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a). The 232 acres of critical habitat on the forest are within Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub and Pinyon Juniper Woodland ERUs. 

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) for critical habitat include breeding and dispersal habitat. 

The following are PCEs for breeding habitat: perennial water or pools with specific pH and 

salinity; no to low pollutants; emergent vegetation and other substrates that do not completely 

cover water surface; absence of disease (chytridiomycosis); and adjacent uplands for foraging and 

basking. In addition, non-native introduced predators are absent or do not preclude this species. 

Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat consists of areas with ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial 

water that are generally not suitable for breeding, and associated upland or riparian habitat that 

provides movement corridors, either overland or along wetted drainages, between breeding sites 

in a metapopulation. These areas have three main characteristics. First, they are not more than 

1 mile overland, 3 miles along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5 miles along perennial 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

257

drainages, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5 miles. Secondly, overland and nonwetted 

corridors provide some vegetation cover or structural features for shelter, forage, and protection 

from predators. Wetted corridors provide some ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial aquatic 

habitat. Thirdly, corridors are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

including, but not limited to development, reservoirs that contain predatory non-native fish, 

bullfrogs, or crayfish, and highways; walls; major dams; or other structures that physically block 

movement.

Risk Factors

The final listing rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a) describes primary threats to the 

species and habitat. The Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) identifies threats 

associated with disease and predation as most important.

Primary habitat threats under Forest Service control include degradation and loss of habitat, 

disruption of metapopulation dynamics, and environmental contamination. Habitat degradation 

includes: livestock grazing, dams and reservoirs, mining, altered fire regimes and increased 

likelihood of crown fires; and factors that disrupt metapopulation dynamics such as disease, 

contaminants, and rarity.

Managed livestock grazing could remove vegetation on which egg masses are attached and that 

provide cover to tadpoles and frogs from predators in any of their riparian and aquatic habitats 

including stock tanks and ephemeral drainages. Range improvements such as fences, troughs, 

pipelines, or new water developments can modify riparian function or alter the hydrology of 

streams. Supplements used for livestock management, such as salt and minerals, can concentrate 

cattle in riparian or other areas that would increase sediment discharge into connected waters 

during a precipitation event. Livestock could also step on eggs, tadpoles, or frogs. In the 

southeastern portion of Recovery Unit 5 on the forest, 24,120 acres in the Buck Springs allotment 

were closed to grazing in 2003. This area contains shallow drainages and headwater meadows 

that could be Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. 

There are potentially three different kinds of mineral resources on the forest—locatable 

(manganese and flagstone), common variety mineral materials (cinders, river rock), and leasable 

(geothermal) all of which are subject to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The only 

current mineral withdrawal in Chiricahua leopard frog habitat is the Fossil Springs Wilderness. 

Fire exclusion has resulted in altered fire regimes in the ERUs within the management areas and 

has increased the vulnerability of these ERUs to uncharacteristic fire. Uncharacteristic fire could 

burn hotter and in larger patches than what would have occurred historically, which in turn could 

result in the movement of sediments and ash into connected waters. This could degrade breeding 

and dispersal habitat, unoccupied potential habitat, or kill frogs. 

Disruption of metapopulation dynamics includes introduction of chytrid fungus that moves 

between individual sites, and factors that alter the suitability of dispersal habitat. Non-miningrelated contaminants include: variety of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, piscicides, 

metals, fire retardants, and suppressants. There is also an increased chance of extirpation by 

virtue of this species’ small population size and the precipitation-dependent nature of their 

habitats. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

258

Environmental Consequences

The scope of the analysis for the Chiricahua leopard frog includes habitat within the Buckskin 

Hills and East Clear Creek Management Areas. The West Mogollon MA contains the only 

occupied habitat on the forest, and the two management areas are the only areas likely to support 

a metapopulation. The analysis below focuses on those risk factors and resource areas that would 

be most consequential in terms of contributing to the viability of Chiricahua leopard frog, based 

on its current or potential distribution. See the Biological Assessment for a detailed analysis of all 

plan components that could potentially affect Chiricahua leopard frog (USDA Forest Service

2017c). 

Table 45 summarizes the viability analysis for Chiricahua leopard frog. 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 IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

259

Table 45. Analysis summary for the Chiricahua leopard frog

Management effect MBDRF, MWRF, Wetlands,

Streams, Intermittent 

Streamcourses = 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 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.

** 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. 

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

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

Chiricahua 

leopard frog 

(Threatened, 

endemic)

MBDRF Good, majority is 

static to slowly 

toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

H 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H 

F Rank = F1* Wetlands Good, toward H Good, toward H 

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

H Fair**, slowly 

toward

H 

Streams Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

Intermittent 

Streamcourses

Poor, static Accessible: 

VH 

Inaccessible: 

H

Poor, slowly 

toward

VH 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

260

Chiricahua leopard frog could be inadvertently harmed by improper application of pesticides or 

herbicides. Pesticides could kill tadpoles, frogs, or prey species. Herbicides can negatively impact 

frog habitat by temporarily removing or reducing shoreline vegetation used for cover and 

protection from predators. All alternatives point to guidelines using the “Design Features, Best 

Management Practices, Required Protection Measures, and Mitigation Measures” in the “Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott” (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This section contains required 

protection measures from Section 7 consultation on Integrated Treatments of Noxious or Invasive 

Weeds (Endangered Species Act, 1987 Plan, page 69; FW-Invas-G-2) which must be followed for 

use of pesticide applications that would reduce potential impacts to the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

With respect to the use of regulated chemicals, all alternatives are equally guided by laws above 

and beyond the forest plan.

All activities in and around water sources are regulated by the Clean Water Act and associated 

regulations and are monitored by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. This does not 

include earthen stock tanks. 

All alternatives have language to meet Arizona water quality standards (1987 Plan, page 28, FWWater-DC-7 and FW-Water-G-5) and for ground-disturbing activities including trail maintenance, 

temporary road construction, and trail construction, implementation of best management practices 

(FSH 2509.25 and 2509.22) per plan guidelines would be effective in reducing sediment and 

improving watershed conditions ((1987 Plan, page 71; FW-Water-G-4). The concept of filter 

strips in alternative A is replaced with the newer concept of aquatic management zones in 

alternative B (modified). Filter strips and aquatic management zones are best management 

practices that reduce sedimentation, soil compaction, and loss of vegetative cover from grounddisturbing management activities on soils, water quality, and riparian vegetation. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A biological assessment (BA) for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the 

region was prepared in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The BA found that the Coconino 

Land Management Plan was “likely to adversely affect” the Chiricahua leopard frog. No critical 

habitat had been proposed or designated at that time. Some of the reasons for the adverse effect

finding were related to the potential spread of chytrid fungus being aggravated by the presence of 

roads and impacts from fire and livestock grazing activities.

The 2005 Biological Opinion (BO) determined that the majority of the applicable standards and 

guidelines in the Coconino’s LRMP would likely result in beneficial effects, but that some of the 

guidance would cause negative effects (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). Overall, the BO 

determined that the effects of the proposed action “is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Chiricahua leopard frog.” The BO found that incidental take would be reasonably 

certain to occur as a result of continued implementation of the LRMP, and would be considered to 

be exceeded if, after a period of two consecutive years, there was a decrease in the total number 

of occupied sites as a result of the proposed action. 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

finding for the Chiricahua leopard frog in the 2011 BA for the continued implementation of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

261

Coconino LRMP was “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the species. This was based on 

the determination that there have been no changes in Forest policy or programs that would change 

the 2004 finding. Critical habitat was proposed for the Chiricahua leopard frog in 2011. The BA 

found that many standards and guidelines were in place to restrict impacts from programs to 

proposed critical habitat, but that some of the guidance would cause negative effects, from 

programs such as roads, livestock grazing and timber harvesting, resulting in a finding of “may 

affect, likely to adversely affect.”

The 2012 BO concluded that incidental take would be reasonably certain to occur as a result of 

continued implementation of the Coconino NF LRMP, and would be considered to be exceeded is 

there was a net loss of any one of the currently occupied stock tanks for one year as a result of the 

implementation of the LRMP (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d). Additionally, the 2012 

BO concluded that the continued implementation of the LRMP would not destroy or adversely 

modify proposed critical habitat. 

Between the time when the 2011 BA was submitted, and the 2012 BO was received from the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, critical habitat was designated for the Chiricahua leopard frog. The 

Coconino NF requested that the conference opinion for proposed critical habitat to be confirmed 

as a biological opinion, and the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that it was appropriate to do 

so, since there were no significant changes made to the project.

The BA for the TMR project determined that the decision would largely benefit Chiricahua 

leopard frog sites by eliminating cross-country travel, not designating camping corridors within 

1 mile of occupied sites, and closing over 50 percent of roads within a 1 mile of sites (USDA 

Forest Service 2010d). Some negative effects were disclosed from designation of camping 

corridors within 1 mile of historic sites, and the potential for other camping activities near habitat. 

The amended BA for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) (USDA Forest Service 2011m) found 

that there would be an increase in MBGR within proposed critical habitat and occupied sites, but 

that adverse effects were not likely. The finding remained “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” for the frog, its habitat, and its proposed critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred with these findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

In summary, taking into account the TMR project and its resulting LRMP amendment, the 

findings from the 2011 BA of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and its proposed critical habitat would remain appropriate for this current analysis. 

Viability

Table 45 summarizes and compares the analyses for Chiricahua leopard frog. This table shows 

that under alternative A, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest would remain in good condition with a static trend or slow trend toward desired 

conditions. In Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, static trends are associated with the 

Oak Creek 5th code HUC, which is not Chiricahua leopard frog habitat; trends that are slowly 

toward desired conditions are associated with the Beaver Creek 5th code HUC (little of which is 

Chiricahua leopard frog habitat); 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. Wetlands would remain in good 

condition and trend toward desired conditions. Springs overall would be considered in fair 

condition with a trend slowly toward desired conditions. However, accessible, unprotected, and 

highly developed springs would remain in poor condition while inaccessible springs or springs 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

262

that are protected and undeveloped would remain in good condition. Intermittent streamcourses

that are intersected by roads and are accessible would remain in poor condition with a static trend. 

Perennial streamcourses would be poor condition with a static trend because the majority of 

streams have invasive or non-native species.

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for Chiricahua leopard frog is 

high to very high and varies slightly by habitat as shown in table 45. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the Chiricahua leopard frog’s 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, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC is 

high), wetlands (moderate if measured by acres, high if measured by number of wetlands ), 

springs (moderate), perennial streams (high), and intermittent streamcourses (high if accessible, 

moderate if inaccessible) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the 

natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 

The management effect row in table 45 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, Montane Willow Riparian Forest, wetlands, perennial 

streams, 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 

does not distinguish riparian forest types from other riparian areas and does not address invasive 

animals and plants that can alter the composition, structure, and function of riparian areas. For 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, Montane Willow Riparian Forest, and wetlands, this 

is primarily because alternative A has minimal plan components for riparian areas and has few

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. This 

is because impaired or unsatisfactory soil condition and not attaining or functional-at-risk riparian 

function are less likely to be improved as quickly as in alternatives B (modified), C, and D. 

The management effect 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. In alternative A, spring management and restoration 

direction is nonexistent or vague and does not provide clear direction to maintain or restore 

toward desired condition of properly functioning, resilient spring riparian areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). Alternative A lacks emphasis on or objectives for spring restoration and would 

result in little to no improvement of riparian function of springs and would probably not move as 

many springs to the desired condition of properly functioning, resilient riparian areas as quickly 

as alternatives B (modified), C, and D. 

Overall watershed condition is expected to remain similar to current condition and the trend is 

expected to remain static under implementation of the current plan. Alternative A does not contain 

specific desired conditions for watershed condition. It 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, 206-100). Plan language is outdated and lacks focus on 

soil and riparian function or overall watershed condition (1987 Plan, pages 23, 72) and lacks 

objectives related to proper functioning condition. There is forestwide direction to maintain 

current satisfactory watershed conditions, improve any unsatisfactory conditions to satisfactory 

by 2020, and evaluate watershed condition for its effect on turbidity (1987 Plan, pages 23, 72, 73, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

263

74). Alternative A also includes several standards and guidelines related to protecting water 

resources and stream riparian areas that would support Chiricahua leopard frog dispersal habitat.

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, streambanks, 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 stream courses 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 majority of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest is found in wilderness (MA 1) and 

within the amendment 12 area (Sedona/Oak Creek Ecosystem). Plan language associated with 

wilderness and the Sedona/Oak Creek ecosystem protect this resource because it minimizes or 

addresses the major threats to the vegetation type, except for those segments of the vegetation 

type that are found in uplands of the associated watershed or outside of Forest Service control. 

This means that while direct impacts to the vegetation type would be minimized, there would be 

little direction to manage indirect effects from activities in the surrounding watershed that could 

be sources of sedimentation and reduce the presence of free-flowing water for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

Direction under alternative A generally does not distinguish between the three riparian forest 

types on the forest. Continuing implementation of alternative A would slowly move a small 

percentage of riparian areas to the desired condition of properly functioning, resilient riparian 

areas (see table 8, Summary of stream riparian function departure values and trends, under 

Riparian Forest Types in volume I). Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest are low to moderately departed from reference conditions. Riparian 

condition and nutrient cycling are expected to improve with the forestwide allowable use 

guidelines for livestock grazing (1987 Plan, page 66-1). These guidelines are intended to maintain 

sufficient vegetative ground cover to sustain soil productivity. Projected future litter and 

vegetation conditions, which affect nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration, should improve and 

approach sustainable levels under the 1987 plan grazing guidelines, as long as allowable use 

levels in the plan are met, which would benefit Chiricahua leopard frog. Most of the direction for 

riparian forested habitat in the current plan is specific to other species like Mexican spotted owl 

and southwestern willow flycatcher, which could be of benefit Chiricahua leopard frog as well if 

these habitats overlapped (1987 Plan, pages 65, 65-4, 206-13, and 206-14). 

There is no specific section for constructed waters under alternative A. There are some general 

goals to improve range or wildlife tanks under Forestwide MA direction (1987 Plan, page 61) and 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

264

to maintain waterlot fences, which offer some protection from livestock (1987 Plan, page 69). 

There is very broad direction for stock tank construction to assess soil suitability and water 

efficiency (1987 Plan, page 69). Guidance that states open storage tanks and drinkers provide 

entry and escape ramps for wildlife (1987 Plan, page 69) would prevent Chiricahua leopard frog 

from getting trapped/stuck.

Under the current plan, plan direction for wetlands and springs is minimal, nonexistent, or vague 

and does not provide clear direction to maintain, restore, or move these systems to the desired 

condition of properly functioning, resilient riparian areas. As with the riparian forest types below, 

objectives are lacking with little emphasis on restoration. 

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); 

however, these areas do not include Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. This topic is analyzed in 

detail under Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section.

In addition to that described in all alternatives, 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). However, it also allows salting in riparian areas to improve livestock 

management by concentrating cattle in certain areas, a practice that could be detrimental to 

Chiricahua leopard frogs 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) and specific objectives that 

protect riparian areas and allow them to recover in the first 20 years of the plan (1987 Plan, page

175). 

The functioning-at-risk areas along the Verde River (Cottonwood Willow Riparian forest type) 

where cattle have been removed (almost all of Coconino NF along the Verde River) show an 

upward trend (USDA Forest Service 2009c) and are expected to improve to proper functioning 

condition where exclusion of livestock grazing continues. Nonfunctional areas should improve 

over time if plan grazing utilization guidelines are followed. If grazing exceeds plan guidelines, 

riparian conditions would remain static or could even trend away from desired condition. 

Forest Service response to wildfires is considered an emergency action and is guided by law, 

regulation, and policy. Chemicals used in fire suppression and prescribed fires (such as fire 

retardant and foam) can harm this species. Although alternative A lacks language that specifically 

addresses the use of such chemicals in threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat 

during fire suppression, it does have the following plan direction to address species needs: goals 

(or desired conditions) to maintain the viability of wildlife species on the forest (1987 Plan, page 

22-1); to follow existing recovery plans (1987 Plan, page 64); and to provide appropriate 

protection or enhancement for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (1987 Plan, page 64-

1), which would be applicable when using the Wildland Fire Decision Support System process 

during wildfires with resource objectives. Fire suppression has a positive impact by preventing or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

265

reducing catastrophic loss of habitat in riparian areas or in the associated watersheds. 

Uncharacteristic fire can result in uncharacteristic waterflows or increases in sedimentation that 

degrade or remove primary constituent elements in habitat (such as perennial water with specific 

pH and salinity and water with no to low pollutants) and can kill species. Fire retardant used as a 

tool in fire suppression can harm aquatic wildlife. Existing policies and guidance reduce or 

remove the impacts from fire retardant to affected species (USDA Forest Service 2011b, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). 

Under alternative A, plan direction includes fire suppression objectives (1987 Plan, pages 93 to 

94) and language that makes it difficult to implement the reintroduction of fire as a natural 

disturbance across a large part of the forest. As a result, the increase in risk of uncharacteristic fire 

to adjacent riparian vegetation types would correspondingly increase.

There is low potential for mineral leasing activities in Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. Many of 

the standards and guidelines in alternative A describe the administrative processes for geology 

and minerals program management, and would not have an on-the-ground effect to resources. 

“No surface occupancy” stipulations would protect wildlife and soils at site-specific locations 

such as where there are federally listed species and slopes greater than 40 percent (1987 Plan, 

page 76). Alternative A identified research natural areas and other special areas to be withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry in the first decade (1987 Plan, page 196). Standards and guidelines 

manage the adverse effects of leasing in areas of high resource sensitivity (1987 Plan, page 77). 

Also, mineral material excavation within the riparian zone may be allowed after environmental 

analysis, and authorized mineral activities would maintain or improve riparian conditions (1987 

Plan, page 177). These plan components would protect or mitigate effects to Chiricahua leopard 

frog habitat.

Movement among and between riparian areas is important for Chiricahua leopard frog dispersal. 

In alternative A, connectivity of habitats is primarily addressed through area-specific or habitatspecific plan language in the Riparian and Open Water—MA 12 (1987 Plan, page 171), which 

emphasizes wildlife habitat, wetlands and riparian forests. There is direction to improve riparian 

habitat, but it is vague (1987 Plan, page 172), and does not focus explicitly on wildlife movement. 

Refer to the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section on Connectivity (this Volume) for 

additional information.

Some of the management area direction in alternative A could result in impacts to this species. 

Riparian and Open Waters Management Area (MA 12) provides the primary direction for 

managing and protecting riparian features and functions (1987 Plan, pages 171 to 177). While 

most of the direction in this section supports properly functioning riparian forests, riparian 

improvement is hindered by standards and guidelines in MA 12 that prohibit precommercial 

thinning in riparian areas or areas with riparian characteristics (1987 Plan, page 176). 

Precommercial thinning is a silvicultural tool used to remove young conifers that would 

otherwise increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire and move understory conditions away from 

desired conditions. 

The Sedona-Oak Creek area (Amendment 12 of the 1987 plan, or MAs 21 to 29) contains riparian 

forest direction as well. Sedona-Oak Creek ecosystem-wide management direction (1987 Plan, 

starting on page 206-9) and individual management areas such as Oak Creek (MA 14) and Lower 

Oak Creek (MA 23) address threats to riparian forests and have some direction to restrict 

activities that negatively impact water resources. Given this plan direction, current conditions 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

266

would likely persist, resulting in natural succession patterns, barring major droughts or 

uncharacteristic fire. 

Alternative B (modified)

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog was “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for both the species and its critical habitat, due to 

the potential for effects from some programs and activities. In its Biological and Conference 

Opinion received on September 21, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b), the Fish and 

Wildlife Service determined that implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Chiricahua leopard frog, and would not be likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. No incidental take was assigned. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service provided three discretionary conservation recommendations intended to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, or develop information. 

Table 45 shows that under alternative B (modified) Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest

would remain in good condition and slowly move toward desired conditions except the trend in 

the West Clear Creek 5th code HUC would improve from static (in alternative A) to slowly 

toward desired conditions and the trend for the Fossil Creek 5th code HUC would improve from 

static (in alternative A) to toward desired conditions. Montane Willow Riparian Forest would be 

the same as alternative A, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC would improve to good 

condition and trend toward desired conditions. Wetland functional condition would be good and 

would also trend toward desired conditions, while spring condition would be the same as 

alternative A, variable depending on access, protection, and development. Intermittent 

streamcourses would remain in poor condition where they are accessible or intersected by roads 

and would trend slowly toward desired conditions, an improvement compared to alternative A. 

Perennial streams would also remain in poor condition and would trend slowly toward desired 

conditions, which is also an improvement compared to alternative A. 

Similar to alternative A, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

Chiricahua leopard frog is high to very high and varies slightly by habitat. See table 45 These 

likelihoods were derived by combining the Chiricahua leopard frog’s 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, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th

code HUC is high), wetlands (moderate considering wetland functional condition), springs 

(moderate), intermittent streamcourse (high if accessible, moderate if inaccessible), and perennial 

streams (high) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are considered to be within the natural range of 

fluctuations for the habitat. Habitat trends for Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, 

perennial streams and intermittent streamcourses improve slightly compared to alternative A, 

which could slightly improve movement between suitable habitats and survival or reproduction in 

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 coarse 

filter habitats associated with Chiricahua leopard frog. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

267

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. 

For all riparian forests, 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; FWRip-RipType-O-1). For all riparian, 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). 

For wetlands, the management effect 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 (FWRip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2, FW-Rip-All-DC-1, 3, 5 and G-2, 3, FW-WFP-DC-6). In addition, wetland

functional condition would improve faster than alternative A. 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). For 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-RdsFacG-2, 5, 7 and 9 and Connectivity under Wildlife and Plants Topics and Issues). For perennial 

streams, this rating is because alternative B (modified) addresses non-native or invasive animal 

species and disease forestwide. This language better addresses frog movement between suitable 

habitats and threats to the habitat and to frogs (considering non-native species and constructed 

waters) than alternative A and could potentially increase the chances for survival.

Desired conditions for all ecosystems are generally consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat. Although the presence of 

desirable non-native species is part of the vision, they are to be in balance with properly 

functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-4), and therefore, non-native species shouldn’t be managed 

for in Chiricahua leopard frog occupied, potential, or critical habitat. Additionally, ecosystems are 

to provide habitat for native species, and to be resilient to natural and uncharacteristic 

disturbances (FW-ECO-DC-1, 2, 3). 

The desired conditions for the watersheds and water program (FW-Water-DC-1 to 7) are 

generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

and habitat, describing watersheds with high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity and that 

are resilient to disturbance. Guidelines for future projects would result in resilient, properly 

functioning watersheds and procurement of instream flow water rights where needed to provide 

sufficient flow for aquatic species. Activities would use best management practices that improve 

water quality, quantity, and timing of flows, while implementing TMDL recommendations that 

meet or exceed Arizona water quality standards. Water quality, quantity, and timing of flows 

would also benefit from excess water being allowed to flow into natural channels, springs, and 

riparian habitat within existing water rights (FW-Water-G-1 to 6). Without specified objectives, 

activities may be implemented to maintain or improve watershed conditions and water quality, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

268

but they are not anticipated to be a primary focus over the plan timeframe. See Watersheds and 

Water, volume 1 for additional details.

Following the guidelines in alternatives B (modified) for water quality and quantity at the project 

level should benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog by management of instream flows and meeting 

water quality standards (FW-Water-G-3 to 6). These guidelines will help ensure frogs have: water 

that is sufficient for survival and reproduction; water that is clean enough to support aquatic food 

sources; and reduced impacts from disease (e.g., Chytridiomycosis). 

Although all known populations of the Chiricahua leopard frog are in constructed stock tanks, the 

guidance in alternatives B (modified) would be beneficial to the Chiricahua leopard frog because 

it will improve natural wetland habitats for the potential reintroduction of frogs within their 

historic range on the forest (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1). 

The vision for constructed waters is that they provide for a variety of uses, including wildlife 

(FW-ConstWat-DC-1), and that earthen stock tanks and constructed wildlife waters remain 

accessible to wildlife (FW-ConstWat-DC-2). Projects implemented in the future consistent with 

these desired conditions will be further guided by two guidelines. FW-ConstWat-G-2 states that 

stock tanks that are important to listed and sensitive species should be managed to maintain water 

and habitat for those species, consistent with existing water rights. Applied to projects and 

management of constructed waters, this should reduce the potential impacts of dewatering and 

vegetation removal from recreation, grazing, tank cleaning, and other activities that could 

negatively affect frog reproduction or survival. This guideline also supports primary constituent 

elements for critical habitat for maintaining water in tanks, and for protecting vegetation around 

tanks. The only other guideline for constructed waters calls for establishing aquatic management 

zones for new projects and activities around reservoirs (FW-ConstWat-G-1). The Chiricahua 

leopard frog does not occupy reservoirs on the forest and isn’t likely to, since they all contain 

non-native species and are primarily managed for recreational and municipal water supplies. 

There are no objectives or standards for constructed waters and associated activities are not 

anticipated to be a primary focus over the plan timeframe. Effects from this program are not 

expected to have adverse effects for the Chiricahua leopard frog and its critical habitat. 

The five desired conditions for All Riparian Areas are consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat. Projects implemented in the 

future to be consistent with desired conditions will be guided by three guidelines. There are no 

objectives or standards. Guidance for All riparian areas under this alternative (FW-Rip-All-G-1, 

2, 3) will ensure that vegetation treatments are balanced with desired conditions for other 

resources, while promoting healthy water flow, quality, and movement corridors. Because 

currently occupied sites within critical habitat are stock tanks connected by non-riparian 

ephemeral drainages, there is no riparian habitat within critical habitat, so the mixture of positive 

and negative effects would not apply to critical habitat. See Riparian Resources, volume 1 for 

additional details.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

269

Table 46. Miles and percentage of riparian habitat by riparian condition and Chiricahua leopard frog 

management area

Riparian Condition Chiricahua Leopard Frog Management Area Total Miles

East Clear Creek West Mogollon

PFC 130.2 (65%) 25.6 (92%) 155.8 (68%))

Functional-at-risk 48.3 (24%) 0 48.3 (21%)

Non-functional 21.7 (11%) 0 21.7 (10%)

Unknown 0 2.2 (8%) 2.2 (1%)

Totals: 200.2 27.8 228

Desired conditions for all Stream Ecosystems are generally consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat because they describe conditions 

supportive of native aquatic species. Emphasis is given to resilient streams and associated flood 

plains, natural hydrographs, self-sustaining aquatic species, habitat connectivity, minimal impact 

of non-native species, and recovery of listed species (FW-RipStrm-DC-1 to 4). Implementing 

projects to meet these desired conditions would benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog. An objective 

in the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants calls for restoring or enhancing at least 70 miles of 

stream habitat every 10 years for the life of the plan (FW-WFP-O-4). This objective does not 

specify where treatments would occur; however, they could be supportive of this species if they 

occur in Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. There are no standards, but there are two guidelines to 

apply during project development and implementation. The first (FW-Rip-Strm-G-1) emphasizes 

streambank stability, native vegetation, and riparian and soil function. This would benefit 

potential Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. With respect to critical habitat, the other guideline (FWRip-Strm-G-2) calls for establishment of AMZs adjacent to non-riparian, intermittent 

streamcourses. While these streamcourses do not provide breeding habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, they could be used for dispersal. This guideline would help minimize impacts from 

projects on dispersing frogs and critical habitat by maintaining vegetative cover for dispersing 

frogs. And, protection of intermittent streamcourses during project activities could reduce impacts 

to occupied habitat or critical habitat downstream. 

Desired conditions for all Wetlands (FW-Rip-Wtlnds-DC-1, 2) are consistent with maintenance 

and improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat. There are no standards or 

guidelines for wetlands. The only objective for wetlands calls for restoring 5 to 10 wetlands that 

are currently not in proper functioning condition (PFC) during each 10-year period of the plan 

(FW-Rip-Wtlnds-O-1). Currently, 28 of the 65 known wetlands are not in PFC, and another two 

wetlands have not been assessed. Specific wetlands to restore will be identified in future projects, 

and if they occur within one of the two frog MAs, it could provide additional habitat for frogs to 

disperse to or be transplanted into. Restoration can include activities such as vegetation planting, 

dredging, and recontouring. While long-term benefits are likely with the goal to improve 

wetlands, there could be short-term impacts to vegetation and soils, and disturbance to frogs if 

they are present in the wetland.

There are no wetlands within critical habitat so there would be no effect expected effect to critical 

habitat from activities to restore wetlands.

Desired conditions for springs are generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat. The only objective calls for restoring riparian 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

270

function to at least 25 springs during each 10-year period during the life of the plan (FW-Rip-SprO-1). Activities to improve springs can include fencing the spring source, piping water away from 

the spring source, contouring downstream channels, vegetation plantings, etc. The Chiricahua 

leopard frog does not currently occupy any natural spring habitat, but if restoration occurs within 

frog MAs, this could benefit these frogs by providing additional habitat for breeding, dispersal or 

translocation. There are no standards, but the proposed plan has four guidelines to consider for 

projects and activities. Two guidelines address maintaining or increasing the amount of water 

(FW-Rip-Spr-G-1, 2). Expanding the extent or permanency of water would be beneficial to frog 

habitat. The other two guidelines would be applied to projects to maintain or improve soil and 

riparian conditions (FW-Rip-Spr-G-3, 4), and would also be beneficial to Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat. There would be no effect to critical habitat from adoption of this plan language because 

there are no springs within critical habitat.

Although there is no riparian habitat in occupied or critical habitat, both Chiricahua leopard frog 

MAs contain riparian forest types. Most of the guidance in the proposed plan applies to all 

riparian forest types, not just the two that provide potential habitat for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog: Mixed Broadleaf and Montane Willow. The six desired conditions generally provide a 

vision for riparian forests that is consistent with maintenance and improvement of Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations and habitat. Projects implemented in the future to be consistent with 

desired conditions will be guided by one objective and four guidelines. 

The one objective calls for restoring function to 200 to 500 acres of riparian habitat during each 

10-year period of the plan. There is a total of 11,018 acres of riparian forest on the Coconino NF, 

with approximately 3,382 acres (31 percent) not in PFC (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Therefore, implementation of this objective equates to an expected improvement of 6 to 

15 percent of riparian acres not currently in PFC. This objective does not specify which riparian 

forest types the objective will treat. Activities to restore riparian could include weed removal, 

fencing to exclude ungulate browsing or off-road driving, road improvements or obliterations, 

and other actions that could have impacts to Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat. These 

impacts are expected to be short-term, since the goal of activities within riparian forest types 

would be to restore functional condition. 

Water diversions and groundwater pumping can be deleterious to Chiricahua leopard frog 

occupied, potential, or critical habitat; however, Guideline FW-Rip-RipType-G-1 states that these 

activities, if they occur, should not lower the water table. Guideline FW-Rip-RipType-G-3 strives 

to keep activities within riparian forests to levels that maintain or allow improvement of habitat, 

but excludes fine-scale activities such as intermittent livestock crossings, water gaps, and 

facilities and infrastructure. Since livestock use of habitat and the construction or use of facilities 

in riparian could impact habitat, critical habitat components, and occupied sites, this caveat is not 

protective for the Chiricahua leopard frog. There is no riparian forest habitat within critical 

habitat, so there will be no effect to PCEs. Overall, as the revised forest plan is implemented over 

the next 10 to 15 years, departure from reference conditions for the Mixed Broadleaf and 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest Types is expected to remain low and the trend for vegetation 

and soil is expected to be static to slowly toward reference condition (USDA Forest Service 

2016b). The slow trend toward reference condition is likely due to the relatively low amount of 

riparian habitat projected to be treated as expressed through the objective. 

Predation and competition from aquatic invasive species such as non-native fish and crayfish are 

key threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). While the two 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

271

desired conditions accept the presence of invasive species, the stated goals are that species’ 

sustainability is not affected (FW-Invas-DC-1) and that infestations are detected early (FW-InvasDC-2). Presumably, detecting infestations early would allow for more successful control or 

elimination. The types of actions that could occur include manual treatments (hand pulling, 

netting, seining, etc.) and the use of pesticides, piscicides, or herbicides to control or remove 

invasive species. For the Chiricahua leopard frog, the manual or chemical removal of non-native 

species from occupied sites could have effects through trampling of banks and shoreline 

vegetation (PCE 1b, 1e), and loss of individual frogs. Effects will be positive if non-native 

species that occur upstream from occupied sites are removed. This would remove the threat of 

spread into occupied sites. If treatments are required in occupied habitat, there could be shortterm effects to individual frogs, and long-term positive effects to the habitat and population, 

particularly PCE 1c for the elimination of non-native predators. The intent of all three guidelines 

is to prevent, control, contain, or eradicate invasive species to protect native species and to 

improve watershed condition and ecosystem function (FW-Invas-G-1, 2, 3). See Non-native or 

Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section in this volume for additional 

information. 

Fire management can have a positive impact by preventing or reducing catastrophic loss of 

habitat in riparian areas or in the associated watersheds. Uncharacteristic fire can result in 

uncharacteristic waterflows or increases in sedimentation that degrade or remove primary 

constituent elements in habitat (such as perennial water with specific pH and salinity and water 

with no to low pollutants) and can kill species. Fire retardant used as tool in fire suppression can 

harm aquatic wildlife. Existing policies and guidance reduce or remove the impacts from fire 

retardant to affected species (USDA Forest Service 2011b, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011b). 

The four desired conditions are generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat, particularly FW-Fire-DC-2 and 3. The goals of 

these two desired conditions are that wildland fires burn within the historic fire regimes and that 

ecosystem function is not lost. Wildland fires include both planned (prescribed) and unplanned 

ignitions. Prescribed fires would be planned and implemented to meet these desired conditions 

and are therefore expected to benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitats through 

maintenance of ecosystem function. There are no objectives or standards for Fire Management. 

One guideline calls for designing fire management activities to be consistent with moving toward 

desired conditions for other resources (FW-Fire-DC-2). Fuels reduction and fire management 

activities include thinning, piling, building line by hand or dozer, and other activities. Occupied 

and critical habitat occurs within pinyon juniper ERUs, where there are no objectives to use 

prescribed fire (see Terrestrial ERU section). While likely to be limited in occupied, potential, and 

critical habitat, these activities could result in disturbance or impacts to upland habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. But prescribed fires would be designed to meet plan components for 

protection of listed species, so effects to the species and its critical habitat are not expected to be 

adverse. 

Two of the three desired conditions for livestock grazing are consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitats. The third, FW-Graz-DC-2, 

allows for lower levels of vegetation and higher levels of soil compaction around livestock 

concentration areas such as earthen stock ponds, springs, and other features. Grazing 

implemented to meet this desired condition in or near occupied sites, potential habitat, or critical 

habitat could have adverse effects to the Chiricahua leopard frog, including its critical habitat.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

272

PCEs related to vegetative cover around breeding habitat (1e), and dispersal habitat (2b), could be 

adversely affected through concentration of livestock eating and trampling vegetation in these 

areas. Livestock can impact occupied Chiricahua leopard frog tanks by lowering water levels 

through drinking, and trampling of bank and aquatic vegetation that provides hiding cover and 

attachments for egg masses. Improvements are considered through allotment-specific analysis or 

separate analyses for new or individual improvements. The one standard, FW-Graz-1, requires 

that troughs and uncovered storage tanks have animal escape devices. This would minimize the 

chance of Chiricahua leopard frogs getting trapped in these water sources. FW-Graz-G-2 call for 

managing livestock grazing to meet or move toward desired conditions for other resources, 

including species, so this would be positive for the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat. The 

other guidelines are generally consistent with habitat and populations of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. However, FW-Graz-G-7 excludes the protective aspects of the guideline in riparian areas 

used for livestock crossings and water gaps, and around some infrastructure. Therefore, if 

livestock crossings, water gaps, and certain infrastructure overlap with occupied, potential, or 

critical habitat, there could be adverse effects to Chiricahua leopard frog habitat from trampling 

and eating riparian vegetation. Emergent vegetation (PCE 1a), adjacent upland habitats (PCE 1e), 

and dispersal habitat (PCE 1b) could be adversely affected in these limited areas.

Activities associated with mineral resources include blasting, drilling, vegetation clearing, and 

other ground-disturbing activities. Although unlikely to occur directly within occupied, potential 

or critical habitat, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of these habitats could result in 

indirect effects such as sedimentation. Although mining is identified as an important threat in the 

final listing rule for the Chiricahua leopard frog (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a), 

activities on the forest are limited. There are few locatable mineral resources such as manganese, 

gypsum, pumice and flagstone, and only a small amount of common variety mineral materials 

such as cinders, rock and fill dirt, and landscape rock (USDA Forest Service 20160). Relevant 

plan components include two desired conditions that are consistent with maintenance of 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations and habitat. There are five guidelines that should be followed 

for mineral projects. For locatable minerals such as gold and other metals, guideline FWMinerals-G-1 calls for considering withdrawal of habitat of species with very limited range, 

which should include the Chiricahua leopard frog. For leasable minerals such as geothermal 

resources and oil and gas, areas with federally listed species should be considered for “no surface 

occupancy (FW-Minerals-G-3). And in general for all types of mineral projects, FW-Minerals-G4, calls for protection of important wildlife habitats using a variety of methods. Together, these 

desired conditions and guidelines should minimize potential impacts to the Chiricahua leopard 

frog, its habitat, and its critical habitat. 

In contrast to alternative A, plan language in alternatives B (modified) addresses connectivity of 

habitats forestwide. This alternative addresses interconnected terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic 

habitats through desired conditions that would promote access to new habitats, facilitate genetic 

diversity, species movements, dispersal, and migration (FW-Water-DC-4, 6; FW-Rip-All-DC- 1, 

2, 3 and G-2; FW-Rip-RipType-G-2);FW-TerrERU-All-DC-3; FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-3; FWWFP-DC-6, FW-WFP-G-6; and MA-AMesa-DC-3). This language would maintain or improve 

habitat permeability and mitigate effects to linkages. Refer to the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics: Connectivity, in this volume for additional information.

Of the 18 management areas in the proposed plan, several overlap with the two Chiricahua 

leopard frog management areas (table 47). The largest percentage of habitat overlap is within the 

Cragin Watersheds (99 percent) and East Clear Creek (96 percent) MAs. Goals for Cragin focus 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

273

on minimizing resource damage from uncharacteristic fire and recreation (MA-CCCrg-DC-1), 

and that there is low-disturbance to wildlife habitat (MA-CCCrg-DC-2). Desired conditions are 

reinforced by two guidelines; MA-CCCrg-G-1 calls for managing the MA to reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfires, flooding, and sedimentation, and to maintain water quality and 

quantity. And, in MA-CCCrg-G-2, roads and trails should be maintained to prevent erosion and 

sedimentation. Both of these guidelines would help protect potential Chiricahua leopard frog

habitat. Desired conditions for East Clear Creek emphasize low-intensity recreational 

opportunities and low disturbance for wildlife habitat (MA-EastClr-DC-1 and 2), which is 

supportive of goals for recovery of the frog in the recovery MA also named East Clear Creek. A 

guideline states that dispersed camping opportunities and motorized recreation should be 

managed to occur outside the vicinity of meadows and riparian areas (MA-EastClr-G-1). This

supports the potential for Chiricahua leopard frog recovery in its East Clear Creek MA by 

minimizing the potential for impacts to potential riparian habitat.

Table 47. Chiricahua leopard frog (CLF) management area acres within proposed plan management 

areas

Proposed Plan 

Management Area

Proposed Plan 

Management Area 

Acres

CLF West Mogollon 

MA Acres (% of 

Proposed Plan MA)

CLF East Clear Creek 

MA Acres (% of 

Proposed Plan MA)

Anderson Mesa 272,731 0 (0%) 2,588 (0.9%)

C.C. Cragin Watersheds 45,711 0 45,189 (99%)

East Clear Creek 53,124 0 51,615 (96%)

Long Valley 164,055 5,785 (4%) 5,416 (3%)

Pine Belt 426,832 38,573 (9%) 8,445 (2%)

Verde Valley 323,455 54,044 (17%) 0 

Although currently occupied sites and critical habitat do not occur in designated wilderness areas, 

the Chiricahua leopard frog’s West Mogollon MA overlaps with two: Fossil Springs, and West 

Clear Creek Wilderness. Overall, direction for the Chiricahua leopard frog within designated 

wilderness areas is sparsely and indirectly described. However, other guidance in the plan would 

apply, such as direction to apply habitat management objectives and species protection measures 

from recovery plans when activities are being planned (FW-WFP-G-1). Activities that are 

anticipated in wilderness areas include managed fire, trail building and maintenance, dispersed 

recreation. Alternative B (modified) would retain the 10 existing wilderness areas, and would 

recommend three additional wilderness areas: Of the three areas are being recommended for 

wilderness designation—Abineau, Strawberry Crater, and Davey’s—only Davey’s contains 

potential Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. About 42 percent (737 acres) of Davey’s recommended

wilderness acreage (1,739 acres) is within the Chiricahua leopard frog West Mogollon MA. An

additional 1,002 acres of the recommended wilderness is within Recovery Unit 5, but outside of 

the West Mogollon MA. There is no critical habitat within any recommended wilderness. Total 

acres of designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, and areas classified as Primitive ROS 

would be 165,107 acres, about 9 percent of the Coconino NF. A goal that supports management of 

federally listed species is reflected in the desired condition that calls for preserving native species 

(SA-RWild-DC-3). The other five desired conditions describe goals to maintain the undeveloped 

character and to emphasize scenery and recreation. Five guidelines will provide sideboards to 

managing activities in recommended wilderness areas, but are not specific to managing wildlife 

or federally listed species. Overall, direction that could apply to potential Chiricahua leopard frog 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

274

habitat within Davey’s is minimal. As with designated wilderness (see above), other plan 

guidance would apply. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would have similar effects to alternative B (modified), but there are a few 

meaningful differences. 

Eight additional management areas are proposed to emphasize reduced human-related disturbance

and all occur in Recovery Unit 5. Four of these management areas contain potential or historic 

habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog (East Clear Creek, Hospital Ridge, Knoll Lake, and Limestone 

Pasture). These four are within the East Clear Creek Management Area and contain 30 percent of 

the Montane Willow Riparian Forest habitat on the forest. The proposed Second Chance 

Management Area is within historic range, but does not contain any riparian habitat. None of 

these management areas are within occupied Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat or the West 

Mogollon Management Area, so there would be no anticipated difference between alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D on occupied habitat. 

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 Chiricahua leopard frog by 

reducing riparian vegetation impacts (i.e., loss of hiding cover and habitat to which egg masses 

could be attached) from disturbance to the frog from recreational and motorized uses of the area. 

While desired conditions and guidelines in both alternative B (modified) and C support the 

potential for Chiricahua leopard frog recovery by minimizing the potential for impacts to 

potential riparian habitat, Alternative C has more focus on managing for ecological conditions 

and managing specifically for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Those that have the potential to be 

most consequential include MA-EastClr-DC-3, which envisions protection and restoration of 

springs, streams, and wetlands, and MA-EastClr-DC-5, which calls for properly functioning 

wildlife habitats. Particularly, provision of habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog is emphasized 

in MA-EastClr-DC-9. 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-DC-1, 3, 5, 10, and 12, MALimestone-DC-1, 3, 5, 10, 12, MA-ScndChnc-DC, 1, 3, 5, 10, 11). Each of these four 

management areas 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, which 

would provide better potential habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Like alternative B 

(modified), there are no objectives.

The primary difference in plan direction and potential effects between alternative B (modified) 

and alternative C is within the direction for the Blue Ridge and East Clear Creek MAs. In 

alternative C, management area direction is more focused on ecological conditions, and 

emphasizes managing habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Appendix F, MA-EastClr-DC-9 

and MA-BlueRidge-DC-13) The East Clear Creek MA, established as an area where recovery 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

275

efforts could receive an emphasis, overlaps with these two alternative C management areas. This 

added emphasis would benefit Chiricahua leopard frog recovery potential, making alternative C a 

slightly better alternative than B (modified) for the species. There is no difference between 

alternative B (modified) and C for Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat.

Alternative C (like alternative B (modified)) would retain the 10 existing wilderness areas and 

recommend 3 additional wilderness areas: Abineau, Davey’s, and Strawberry Crater. Alternative 

C also includes 10 additional recommended wilderness areas in Recovery unit 5: Barbershop 

(1,305 acres), Black Mountain (9,715 acres), Cedar Bench (5,782 acres), Cimarron-Boulder 

(15,124 acres), Deadwood Draw (11,775 acres), East Clear Creek (1,986 acres), Hackberry 

(25,836 acres), Railroad Draw (1,220 acres), Tin Can (3,905 acres), and Walker Mountain (6,377 

acres). The 13 recommended wilderness areas would total 91,7573 acres (table 48). Acres of 

designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, and areas classified as Primitive ROS would 

total 248,131 acres.

Four of the sites currently occupied by Chiricahua leopard frog are within or straddle the 

boundary of the Cimarron-Boulder recommended wilderness area. The remaining sites are not 

within any recommended wilderness area. Only three historic locations for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog are within recommended wilderness areas: one in the Black Mountain recommended 

wilderness area and two within East Clear Creek recommended wilderness area. No additional 

plan language would be included in alternative C; the plan components in alternative B 

(modified) for recommended wilderness areas would apply, so the effects would be similar.

Table 48. Recommended wilderness 

Recommended Wilderness Acres

Alternatives B (modified) and C

Abineau 415

Davey’s 1,739

Strawberry Crater 6,579

Alternative C

Barbershop 1,305

Black Mountain 9,715

Cedar Bench 5,782

Cimarron Boulder 15,124

Deadwood Draw 11,775

East Clear Creek 1,986

Hackberry 25,836

Railroad Draw 1,220

Tin Can 3,905

Walker Mountain 6,377

Wilderness recommendation could affect Chiricahua leopard frog in both positive and negative 

ways. Limitation on roads and access could reduce the potential for disturbance, habitat impacts, 

and spread of disease among sites. However, where riparian habitats and occupied or potential 

sites exist, there is often a need to conduct restoration activities such as thinning to improve 

 

3 The 91,757 acres includes 905 acres of Hackberry Wilderness, which extends onto the Prescott NF. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

276

adjacent watershed condition and waterflow, removing non-native 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.

Alternative D

Alternative D will have similar effects to alternative B (modified), with a few notable exceptions. 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Not adding any new wilderness areas would avoid both the 

positive (reducing the likelihood of disturbance, habitat destruction, and spread of disease) and 

negative (reduced ability to actively restore habitat) that proposing new wildernesses would result 

in. However, because the Strawberry, Davey’s, and Abineau proposed wilderness areas would

have no effect on occupied Chiricahua leopard frog habitat and its critical habitat, and a 

negligible effect on other riparian habitat, the effects from this alternative would be similar to 

alternative B (modified). See Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers section, volume I for 

additional detail.

Alternative D adjusts scenic resources direction to allow for expansion along two powerline 

corridors. One corridor is approximately 21 miles between Sycamore and Red Rock-Secret 

Mountain wildernesses, and the other is approximately 11 miles along State Highway 87. Neither 

occur within Chiricahua leopard frog management areas, so there will be no effect to the species 

or its critical habitat from this adjustment.

Findings

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences for wildlife, fish, and plants, all 

alternatives may affect, and are likely to adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog and its 

critical habitat. The reasons for the findings are described above. Implementation of plan 

components related to vegetation treatments, recreation management, watershed management, 

wildlife, fish or rare plants management, or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have 

short-term negative effects on aquatic and riparian habitat or species populations, but would 

produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats and species 

populations on the Coconino NF. 

For landscape-level habitat threats, the coarse filter section of this document summarizes how 

landscape threats to the primary habitats, including uncharacteristic fire and overall water quality, 

are addressed in the alternatives. Additional details are in the Vegetation, Soil, and Riparian 

Resources, and Watersheds and Water sections of this document. 

Although all alternatives contribute to the viability and persistence of this species, alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D share the following characteristics that better maintain the viability and 

persistence of the Chiricahua leopard frog and contribute to their recovery: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

277

• desired conditions are more clearly articulated for all habitats including Wetlands and 

Springs, so that the composition, structure, and processes of these habitats better provide 

for the needs of this species;

• guidelines specifically address disease and invasive animals more comprehensively, 

resulting in reductions of these threats within the authority of the Forest Service; 

• threats to habitats are better defined and plan components would improve habitat 

conditions as projects are implemented; and 

• language regarding movement corridors and connectivity between habitats is updated so 

that links between breeding and upland habitats, and between suitable habitats would be 

maintained. 

The amount of riparian or wetland habitat and waters could have a slight increase from the 

current amount of habitat due to restoration work that includes precise and measurable objectives.

Alternative C is slightly better than alternatives B (modified) and D for Chiricahua leopard frog

recovery because there are additional guidelines that reduce disturbance from motorized 

dispersed camping and vehicle use. This additional emphasis on ecological integrity in the East 

Clear Creek recommended wilderness, could benefit Chiricahua leopard frog recovery potential.

The amount of riparian or wetland habitat and waters could have a slight increase from the 

current amount of habitat due to restoration work that includes precise and measurable objectives.

Guidance for water quality among all is similar. 

California Condor

Affected Environment 

No specific conservation actions have been taken for the condor on the forest. The species does 

not breed or overwinter on the forest, and there have only been a couple of detections of 

wandering condors since they were reintroduced. 

Distribution

Reintroduction of captive-bred condors in Arizona began in 1996, at the Vermilion Cliffs National 

Monument. They were introduced under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act as an 

experimental nonessential population (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). This means that 

this population is not essential to the continued existence of the species. There were 74 condors in 

Arizona as of 2011. Condors generally travel between two main areas: the Grand Canyon in 

Arizona, and Zion National Park in Utah (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a). As of the end 

of 2015, the Arizona/Utah population was 80 condors in the wild (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2015b). 

There have been two sightings of condors on the forest since the introduction. Coconino NF north 

of I-40 is within the experimental population area, which was designated to accommodate future 

movements and expansions of reintroduced condors (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The 

nonessential experimental population status applies to condors in the Southwest only when they 

are within the geographic bounds of the designated 10(j) area, which is defined by: Interstate 

Highway 40 on the south, U.S. Highway 191 on the east (parallel to the New Mexico and 

Colorado state borders), Interstate Highway 70 on the north, and Interstate Highway 15 to U.S. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

278

Highway 93 near Las Vegas, Nevada on the west. Condors outside of this are fully protected as 

endangered. 

Habitat

Condors nest and roost on cliffs, caves, or tall conifers, forage in open terrain for carrion, and can 

travel 100 miles or more in a day. Condors can occur where there are suitable nest and roost sites 

and abundant source of large dead mammals. While not tied to any particular ERUs, they favor 

open habitats and grasslands when searching for food. 

Risk Factors

The main threat to the Arizona population of California condors is ingestion of lead shot, which is 

regulated by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. From 1996 to 2006, the mortality of 

14 condors was linked to lead poisoning or suspected lead poisoning (Austin et al. 2007). The 

Arizona Game and Fish Department has a voluntary lead shot program, along with its partners the 

Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Antelope Foundation, Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, and the Arizona Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation. Their 

message to hunters is to “be part of the solution by using nonlead ammunition when hunting in 

condor country” which they identify as Game Management Units 9, 10, 12A/B, and 13A/B (none 

of these are on the forest).

Table 49. Mortality within the Southwest condor population from 1996 to 2011

Cause of Mortality Number Percent

Lead Poisoning 21 48

Predation 12 27

Shooting 3 7 

Starvation 3 7 

Collision 2 5 

Impaction 2 5 

Infection 1 2 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of the analysis for the condor is the entire Forest, with a focus on its designated 

experimental population area, which includes all Coconino NF lands north of I-40. The forest has 

very little influence on the factors that are affecting and limiting the condor population in the 

Southwest. The following analysis focuses on management actions and plan components that 

could have effects on cliff nesting habitat or could influence the potential for collisions with 

powerlines or vehicles. 

Table 50 summarizes the viability analysis for California condor. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

279

the effects of the alternatives are explained in greater detail in the discussions on the alternatives 

that follow.

Table 50. Analysis summary for the California condor

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

California condor 

(Experimental 

nonessential, 

Endangered)

Cliffs Good, static L Good, static L 

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

Management effect 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 or 

habitat elements is maintained 

or improved by providing 

protection, maintenance, and 

restoration to some 

occurrences. 

Cliffs and caves = 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. 

*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. 

The reintroduced Arizona population of the California condor has been designated as a nonessential, experimental population. By definition, a non-essential experimental population is not 

essential to the continued existence of the species. Therefore, no proposed action impacting an 

experimental, non-essential population so designated under Endangered Species Act §10(j) could 

lead to a jeopardy determination for the entire species. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

280

For the fully listed entity (endangered outside of 10(j) area) implementation of the alternatives 

would not cause a loss of viability for the endangered California condor. Because condors do not 

currently occur on the forest, effects are unlikely to occur. If condors do become established 

during the life of this plan, effects from Forest activities are expected to be minimal because of 

the plan guidance that would apply as analyzed below. Encouraging maximum use of existing 

utility corridors and communication sites to minimize new developments across the landscape is 

common direction to all alternatives. Procedures for the review and response times for special use 

applications and requests are set by policy and regulations outside the forest plan and would 

apply regardless of the plan alternative selected. 

Motor vehicle use beyond the designated system of roads, trails, and areas is prohibited except 

where expressly allowed (1987 Plan, page 58, FW-RdsFac-S-1). This could help reduce 

disturbance to nesting or roosting condors. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). The BA found that LRMPs were “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of the California condor, but only the Kaibab NF was analyzed; the 

Coconino NF LRMP was not. The 2005 BO concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005a).

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). For 

the Coconino LRMP, the finding was “not likely to jeopardize” the continued existence of the 

non-essential experimental California condor population, and “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” the fully listed population. The 2012 BO concurred with these findings (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2012d).

The analyses for the TMR project determined that the decision would have no effect on the 

condor, and therefore, would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species (USDA Forest 

Service 2010d, 2011m, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

In summary, taking into account the “no effect” finding for the TMR project, the findings from 

the 2011 BA of “not likely to jeopardize” for the non-essential experimental population, and “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” the California condor would remain appropriate for this 

current analysis. 

Viability

While the 1987 plan contains standards and guidelines supporting recovery of listed species and 

other supportive guidance, (1987 Plan, pages 22-1 to 22-3) the forest has little control over the 

primary threat to condors (ingestion of lead shot), should they occur on the Coconino NF. Harvest 

of game animals is regulated by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Table 50 summarizes and compares the analysis for the California condor. This table shows that 

under alternative A, cliffs and caves would remain in good condition and have a static trend with 

regard to desired conditions. The assumption was that any cave used by California condors for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

281

nesting would be mainly inaccessible and therefore in good condition and likely to remain in that 

condition. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for California condor is low as 

shown in table 50. This likelihood was derived by combining the California condor’s F Rank of 

FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation variable for cliffs and caves (low) (table 9). 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. 

While alternative A does not have plan components specific to cliffs, it does contain plan 

language beneficial for peregrine falcons, another cliff-dwelling species. These components could 

be beneficial for the other cliff-dwelling species in locations where they share habitat with 

peregrine falcons. Alternative A also includes a goal 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, page 206-

11 through 13). There is similar guidance in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem Area (1987 Plan, 

pages 206-67, 116). There is also forestwide direction to reduce disturbance to nesting peregrines 

(1987 Plan, page 64-1). See the discussion on Disturbance in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section in this volume for additional information. 

Plan components in alternative A would conserve wildlife habitat provided by caves and would 

keep cave locations confidential when needed to protect wildlife habitat and cave biota (1987 

Plan, pages 22 and 51-1). Standards and guidelines that minimize impacts to caves would be 

beneficial to wildlife species including the condor. Management activities planned near or within 

a known cave area are evaluated for their potential impacts, cave microclimate, hydrology, and 

entrance vegetation is maintained to preserve cave ecology, and during project planning, at least a 

300-foot radius around cave entrances, infeeder drainages, and surface areas immediately over 

cave passages is maintained to minimize any negative effects on cave resources (1987 Plan, pages 

51-1 through 51-2). In addition, caves of high resource values, and a suitable buffer area of 

approximately one-quarter mile from known cave passages, may be recommended for withdrawal 

from mineral entry (1987 Plan page 51-2). Alternative A provides the greatest number of miles of 

NFS roads open to motorized travel, but it does not consider any new wilderness or management 

areas. Roads would be decommissioned or closed in compliance with the 1987 plan and the 2011 

Travel Management Decision, but there are no specific objectives for road decommissioning. The 

1987 plan provides direction to provide and manage a transportation system that fulfills the needs 

of the public (1987 Plan, page 24). This direction could increase opportunities for vehicle 

collisions by the condor and or large ungulates it preys upon. There is no decision or plan 

direction to close or decommission roads or camping corridors. Likewise, there are no express 

suitability determinations included in this alternative. The road system and camping corridors 

would continue to be managed and adjusted through the TMR process. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

282

Specific special use direction on processing has been changed in policy and regulation since the 

1987 plan was implemented and some direction and terminology is outdated. Conflicting 

direction could affect the special use permitting process and require plan amendments to 

implement current projects. Utility corridor direction encourages maximizing the use of existing 

corridors before looking at new ones and new corridors on the forest would be limited (1987 

Plan, pages 24, 206-21). This would benefit condors by minimizing collisions with powerlines, 

should they become established on the forest. Overall, the 1987 plan provides encourages special 

uses that meet the needs of expanding communities, while minimizing impacts to other resource 

values, but direction is broad and somewhat outdated. Alternative A has the least restrictions on 

where transmission lines could be located. 

Alternative A, also has some general language that would minimize human interactions with 

condors by limiting opportunities for commercial recreation and considering natural resources in 

that process (1987 Plan, page 115-4). Guidelines for ROS aid in determining appropriate types 

and numbers of individual, groups, outfitter/guides, and special uses (1987 Plan, page 206-62). 

Alternative B (modified)

Table 50 shows that under alternative B (modified) cliffs, and caves used by condors, would 

remain in good condition and have a static trend related to desired conditions, like alternative A. 

As shown in table 50, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for 

California condor is low. This likelihood was derived by combining the California condor’s F 

Rank of FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for cliffs and caves (low) (table 9). 

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, 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. 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 cliffs. A desired condition 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). 

Condors in Arizona nest and roost in steep terrain with cliffs, ledges, and caves. Plan components 

for geological features include desired conditions that biophysical features are generally 

undisturbed by human activities and (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1) and that they provide habitat for 

species that require specialized niches for nesting, roosting, and overwintering (FW-BioPhysGeo-DC-3 and 6). These goals would be positive for condors, by limiting disturbance (e.g., rock 

climbing) nears cliffs and caves used by condors for nesting or roosting. Guidelines to protect 

geological features call for designing projects and uses to maintain their integrity and function 

(FW-BioPhys-Geo-G-1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

283

Alternative B (modified) provides a mix of road closures, new recommended wilderness areas, 

more areas managed for SPNM ROS settings, and areas determined to be not suitable for 

temporary and permanent road construction, which would decrease the motorized travel on the 

forest compared to alternative A. Existing roads can influence the condor directly through 

mortality from collision. Collisions that kill ungulates can provide carrion for feeding condors. If 

condors were present, construction, maintenance and modifications could disturb condors, and 

construction could provide access to areas occupied by condors. Until condors occupy the forest, 

these would not affect the population. An objective to decommission 200 to 800 miles of roads 

during the 10 years following plan approval (FW-RdsFac-O-1) could prove beneficial if roads 

were decommissioned adjacent to or near condor nest or roost sites, by reducing the unauthorized 

motorized use of these roads. Finally, 10 guidelines that provide sideboards to future projects and 

activities are provided in the proposed plan. Most guidelines relate to protecting habitat in a 

variety of ways, such as ensuring best management practices are applied and to naturalize 

temporary roads soon after use (FW-RdsFac-G-5 and 8). Relative to the condor, FW-RdsFac-G-6 

calls for decommissioning unneeded roads, and FW-RdsFac-G-7 recommends that existing roads 

be used or realigned before constructing new roads to avoid areas where disturbance-sensitive 

threatened and endangered species are present. These guidelines would be positive for the condor 

if applied in the vicinity of nesting or roosting areas. 

Lands special use authorizations include utility lines, communication sites, research permits, and 

others. Recreation special uses include things such as outfitter-guide services, skiing, and special 

events. Collisions, particularly with powerlines, are a threat to condors and are addressed though 

two desired conditions: 

• FW-Spec-Use-DC-2 states that infrastructure related to utility and energy transmission 

corridors meets legal mandates while maintaining or moving toward other desired 

conditions. 

• FW-Spec-Use-DC-3 expresses the goal that utility lines be buried when possible, which 

would avoid any potential for collisions.

Several guidelines would relate to condor management. A guideline recommends that lands 

special uses should be designed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for other 

resources (FW-SpecUse-G-1), which would include desired conditions for condors. Several other 

guidelines call for locating and designing new and reconstructed utility infrastructure to minimize 

impacts to wildlife (FW-SpecUse-G-5), and for using or expanding existing sites or corridors for 

communication towers and utilities instead of creating new sites (FW-SpecUse-G-4, 8). Another 

guideline calls for burying utility lines when possible (FW-Spec-Use-G-9). Collectively, these 

guidelines would help lessen potential collision impacts to condors, should they occupy the forest

in the future. 

Communication is a useful tool to make visitors aware of the hazard of using lead shot for 

carrion-feeding wildlife like condors. A desired condition in the section on Interpretation and 

Education promotes a land ethic that would reduce visitor impact on ecosystems and supports 

protection of natural resources. This desired condition could promote lead reduction and other 

wildlife awareness principles by the visiting public (FW-InterpEd-DC-1). 

Within the experimental population area, there are all or portions of three existing wildernesses: 

Kachina Peaks, Kendrick Mountain, and Strawberry Crater. Kendrick Mountain Wilderness is 

managed by the Kaibab NF. Alternative B (modified) would recommend adding 415 acres to the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

284

Kachina Peaks Wilderness through the addition of the Abineau recommended wilderness and 

6,579 acres to the Strawberry Crater Wilderness. These additions could have a minor beneficial 

effect to condors by prohibiting motorized use and powerline construction that can result in 

condor collisions. 

Alternative C

Alternative C will have similar effects to alternative B (modified). Alternative C plan components 

differ very little from alternative B (modified). The environmental effects from adopting the 

different plan components for old growth, management areas, and special areas are minor. 

Applying the plan guidance for the 10 additional proposed wilderness areas is expected to result 

in a minor additional beneficial effect to the species through prohibition of motorized use and 

powerline construction in these areas. Like alternative B (modified), guidance in alternative C 

supports re-introduction and management of listed species. Plan guidance would not have a direct 

influence on the potential for condors to ingest lead shot. Unlike alternative B (modified), 

mechanized travel in botanical and geological areas is not suitable. This would have some slight 

benefits for the condor should it become established on the forest, by reducing the possibility of 

related disturbance in those areas.

Alternative D

Alternative D will have similar effects to alternative B (modified), with a few notable exceptions. 

Alternative D responds to public suggestions for no additional wilderness areas and to allow 

mechanized recreation in botanical and geological areas. Alternative D also responds to issues 

regarding future energy corridor expansion needs. One corridor is approximately 21 miles 

between Sycamore and Red Rock-Secret Mountain wildernesses, and the other is approximately 

11 miles along State Highway 87. Both of these corridors are outside of the experimental 

population area for condors. However, powerline collisions are a threat to condors, and this 

alternative increases the risk of collisions along 32 miles of powerline, if and when expansion 

occurs. Plan guidance for roads, facilities, and special uses as noted in B (modified) above would 

still apply, however, and mitigate those threats. 

No new wilderness areas are being proposed in alternative D. 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

In the 20 years since reintroduction, wandering condors have only been detected on the forest

twice. Their breeding range is focused from the Grand Canyon/Colorado River area north into 

Utah. The basic elements condors need are cliffs and caves for nesting and roosting, and abundant 

carrion. The key threat to condors is ingestion of lead shot, and while the forest does not have 

control over that factor, it would cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish Department should they 

expand their voluntary lead shot program to the Coconino NF and would promote lead reduction 

in wildlife awareness communication with the public. Guidance in the plan is generally 

supportive of re-introduction and management of listed species, which would apply to the condor 

if it establishes in the future within the experimental population area or outside of it. Of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

285

primary threats to the condor, the only one affected by Forest management activities is the threat 

of collisions and the alternatives have plan components to address that threat. 

Should the condor become established on the forest in the future, all alternatives would contribute 

to the viability of the species because all alternatives include plan components that would protect 

suitable nesting habitat (e.g., caves and cliffs) and balance special use permits with other resource

values. Alternative C may be slightly more beneficial than alternatives A, B (modified), and D, 

because of the additional wilderness area designations and limitations on recreation and 

mechanized travel that may reduce human-wildlife interactions. Alternative D is least protective 

because of its provisions for future energy corridor expansion which could increase the risk for 

collision. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Affected Environment 

Since the Mexican spotted owl was listed in 1993, the forest has taken a number of actions to 

contribute toward recovery of the species. For any project within the range of the owl, the forest

considers needs for the species in project design, analyzes effects of the project, and consults with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service as needed. In addition, surveys are conducted to protocol prior to 

project implementation; the Regional Office has funded implementation of population occupancy 

design on NFS lands in the southwestern region; monitoring of known protected activity centers 

(PACs) is done as needed and as required through biological opinions from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and people conducting surveys and monitoring receive Fish and Wildlife Service -

approved training and applicable permits. 

Distribution

It ranges from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and the western portions of Texas south 

into several states of Mexico (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). As of January 2016, there 

are 192 Mexican spotted owl PACs that are completely or partially on the Coconino NF. Several 

overlap with Walnut Canyon National Monument, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, and 

Kaibab National Forest. 

Habitat

ERUs that support Mexican spotted owl habitat are Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent 

Fire, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire. Forested riparian types that also provide dispersal 

or wintering habitat includes Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf and Montane Willow 

Riparian Forests. Mixed conifer systems are moderately departed and Ponderosa Pine is highly 

departed from reference conditions. Both systems are trending away from reference conditions. 

Riparian systems are in fair to good condition and are trending toward reference conditions or are 

static. See the Coarse Filter: Habitat section in this volume and Riparian Resources and 

Vegetation and Fire in volume 1 for additional details on departures from reference conditions. 

On the Coconino NF, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats are the dominant vegetation 

types within Mexican spotted owl PACs (table 51). Mexican spotted owls use cliffs and canyons 

within these habitat types, particularly on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District. Habitat is 

characterized by high canopy closure, high stem density, multi-layered canopies within the stand, 

numerous snags, and downed woody material. PACs are established at all Mexican spotted owl 

known and historical sites and are at least 600 acres in size, encompassing known nests, roosts, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

286

and the best available habitat in the area. Current total acreage in PACs on lands managed by the 

forest is approximately 117,080 acres (table 51). PAC acreage is a relatively small portion of 

overall ERU acreages (table 51). The first row shows that there are 797,171 acres of ponderosa 

pine on the forest and there are 85,975 PAC acres in ponderosa pine. This row also shows that 

73 percent of the total PAC acreage is ponderosa pine and that 11 percent of ponderosa pine is in 

PACs. 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 318,868 acres 

(table 51). Since the Mexican spotted owl does not typically nest or roost in pure ponderosa pine, 

the 85,975 acres in PACs is assumed to be pine-oak. 

Table 52 shows the estimated amount of recovery habitat on the forest. Recovery habitat is 

primarily ponderosa pine-Gambel oak, mixed conifer, and riparian forest that currently is, or has 

the potential for becoming nest/roost habitat, or does or could provide foraging, dispersal, or 

wintering habitats (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). The amount was determined by 

subtracting PAC acres from total ERU acres. Pine-oak recovery habitat is refined at the project 

level. All vegetation types are typically refined at the project level, based on field observations 

and available data. Numbers used in this analysis are necessarily at a coarser level than will be 

available site-specifically as projects are implemented under the forest plan. 

Table 51. Mexican spotted owl PAC acreage, percent by ERU, and percent of total ERU acreage 

within PACs

ERU ERU 

Acres

PAC 

Acres

ERU 

Percent of 

Total PAC 

Acres

Percentage 

of Total ERU 

Acreage in 

PACs

Ponderosa Pine 797,171 85,975 73 11

Pine-oak estimated 318,868 85,975 73 27

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 37,143 13,104 11 35

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 49,595 7,621 7 15

Interior Chaparral 50,471 3,738 3 7 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3,568 1,615 1 45

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (Persistent) 75,439 1,668 1 2 

Gallery Coniferous Riparian Forest* 200 138 <1 69

Spruce Fir 13,946 734 <1 5 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 23,656 645 <1 3 

Water 2,932 81 <1 3 

Wetland/Cienega/Lakes 10,121 157 <1 2 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 1,324 17 <1 1 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 5,926 183 <1 3 

Great Basin Grassland 92,842 119 <1 <1

Pinyon Juniper with Grass 261,454 558 <1 <1

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 263,554 827 <1 <1

Totals: 117,080 100

*Updated riparian mapping indicates that Gallery Coniferous Riparian Forest does not occur on the forest. The areas 

formerly classified as Gallery Coniferous (upper end of West Fork and Jack’s Canyon for example) more likely fall under 

the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous or Montane Willow Riparian Forest types, but this would be decided at the project level.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

287

Table 52. Estimated PAC and recovery habitat on the Coconino NF 

ERU ERU Acres PAC Acres Estimated Recovery 

Habitat (acres)

Pine-oak estimated 318,868 85,975 232,893

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire 37,143 13,104 24,039

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 49,595 7,621 41,974

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3,568 1,615 1,953

Gallery Coniferous Riparian Forest* 200 138 62

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 1,324 17 1,307

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 5,926 83 5,843

*Updated riparian mapping indicates that Gallery Coniferous Riparian Forest does not occur on the forest. The areas 

formerly classified as Gallery Coniferous (upper end of West Fork and Jack’s Canyon for example) more likely fall under 

the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous or Montane Willow Riparian Forest types but this would be decided at the project level.

Critical Habitat: On August 31, 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated approximately 

8.6 million acres of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl on Federal lands in Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah and described the primary constituent elements (PCE) in detail

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Within the critical habitat boundaries, critical habitat 

included only protected and restricted habitats as defined in the original Recovery Plan (USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). It also excluded 157 wildland-urban interface project areas on 

NFS lands. In summary, the primary constituent elements of critical habitat are forest structure 

(PCE 1a: range of trees species, 1b: canopy, 1c: snags), maintenance of adequate prey base (PCE 

2a: high volume of woody debris, 2b: high plant and tree diversity, 2c: adequate plant cover), and 

canyon habitat (3a: water, 3b: clumps or stringers of riparian vegetation and/or forest and 

woodland tree species; 3c: canyon walls with crevices, ledges, or caves; 3d: high percentage of 

litter and woody debris). 

On the forest, there are approximately 550,500 acres within critical habitat boundaries. This 

acreage is within all or a portion of six critical habitat units within the Upper Gila Mountains 

Recovery Unit. As defined in the 1995 recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995), 

protected and restricted habitat was used as the basis for critical habitat definition. Protected areas 

included PACs, areas in mixed conifer and pine-oak with greater than 40 percent slopes where 

timber harvest hasn’t occurred in the past 20 years, and administratively reserved lands such as 

Wilderness Areas or Research Natural Areas. Restricted habitat included mixed conifer, pine-oak, 

and riparian forests outside of PACs. While a variety of ERUs are within the boundaries of the

critical habitat designation, mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forest provide the PCEs 

necessary for owl habitat. Critical habitat comprises between 2 to 81 percent of total ERU 

acreage.

Risk Factors 

Since the Mexican spotted owl was listed in 1993, the key threat has shifted from even-aged 

timber management to stand-replacing fire (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). Some 

additional threats and factors influencing the Mexican spotted owl include fuels reduction 

activities, fuelwood collection, recreation, ungulate grazing, roads and trails, and land 

development. See the recovery plan for detailed information on current threats.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

288

Environmental Consequences

The scope of the analysis for the Mexican spotted owl includes all habitat on the forest, including 

designated critical habitat, and PAC and recovery habitat as defined by the recovery plan. The 

analysis below focuses on those risk factors and program areas that would be most consequential 

in terms of maintaining viability for Mexican spotted owl. 

Table 53 summarizes the viability analysis for Mexican spotted owl. 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 53. Analysis summary for the Mexican spotted owl

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Mexican spotted 

owl 

(Threatened, 

endemic) 

F Rank = F2*

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: M-H 

Low objective long 

term: M-H 

High objective: MH 

MCFF Fair, trending 

toward at short 

term then 

static trend at 

long term

M-H 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: MH 

High objective: M

MCIF Fair, trending 

away at short 

term then 

Poor, trending 

away at long 

term 

Short term: MH 

Long term: H

Fair, static M-H 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

289

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Cliffs Good, static M Good, static M 

Management effect PP, MCFF, MCIF = 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. 

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. 

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

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 would continue to follow guidance in the most current Mexican spotted owl

recovery plan and consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on project design and 

implementation. The forest would continue to implement conservation actions as mentioned 

above. All alternatives would follow management and direction provided in FSM 2356 with 

regard to cave resource management during project planning and general intent of the Federal 

Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-691). The Coarse Filter: Habitat sections on the 

Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer Infrequent Fire ERUs provide 

additional information regarding how the alternatives address habitat threats to Mexican spotted 

owl habitat. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). The BA found that the continued implementation of the Coconino 

Land Management Plan was “likely to adversely affect” the Mexican spotted owl and its critical 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

290

habitat. Some of the reasons for the adverse effect findings were related to issuance of special use 

permits, fuels reduction and watershed management projects, and livestock grazing. 

The 2005 BO determined that the majority of the applicable standards and guidelines in the 

Coconino’s LRMP would maintain habitat and provide at least minimal recovery for the owl, but 

that some of the guidance would cause negative effects (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

Overall, the BO determined that the effects of the proposed action “is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of the Mexican spotted owl, and “is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify” designated critical habitat. The BO found that incidental take would be reasonably 

certain to occur as a result of continued implementation of the LRMPs, and assigned take by 

recovery unit instead of individual forests. 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

finding for the Mexican spotted owl for the Coconino LRMP was “may affect, likely to adversely 

affect” for the species and designated critical habitat. These findings were based on the 

determination that there was no new significant scientific information or data that would change 

the effects analysis for the Mexican spotted owl and its designated critical habitat. 

The 2012 BO concluded that the continued implementation of the LRMP for the Coconino NF 

would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mexican spotted owl, and would 

not be likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2012d). The BO found that incidental take would be reasonably certain to occur as a 

result of continued implementation of the Coconino LRMP, and assigned incidental take specific 

to the forest. 

The BAs for the TMR project determined that the decision would largely benefit the Mexican 

spotted owl by reducing disturbance of owls and reducing impacts to habitat through a reduction 

of roads and motorized trails within PACs, but that designation of camping corridors in PACs 

would continue to concentrate use and could affect the quality of habitat (USDA Forest Service 

2010d). The finding was “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Mexican spotted owl

and its habitat. The finding for critical habitat was also “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

based on an insignificant and discountable loss of critical habitat through designation of a small 

amount of user-created road as an NFS road, and designation of some motorized dispersed 

camping corridors. 

The amended BA for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) found that there would be an 

increase in MBGR within PACs, other owl habitat, and critical habitat, but that adverse effects 

would not be expected (USDA Forest Service 2011m). This was based on the timing of MBGR 

and provisions that minimize potential impacts. Therefore, the finding of “may affect, not likely 

to adversely affect” for the species and its critical habitat did not change from the 2010 TMR BA. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with those findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011e, 2011f). 

In summary, taking into account the TMR project and its resulting LRMP amendment, the 

findings from the 2011 BA of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Mexican spotted 

owl, its habitat, and its designated critical habitat would remain appropriate for this current 

analysis. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

291

Viability

Table 53 summarizes and compares the analyses for the Mexican spotted owl. This table shows 

that under alternative A, Ponderosa Pine ERU would remain in poor condition and trend toward 

desired conditions in the short term under the low Mexican spotted owl treatment objectives

(50,000 acres mechanical, 120,000 acres prescribed burn). 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. The improved vegetation structure 

and composition would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

would remain in fair condition and initially trend toward desired conditions, but then become 

static relative to desired conditions in the long term. Mixed conifer with Infrequent Fire would 

remain in fair condition and trend away from desired conditions in the short term. In the long 

term, Mixed conifer with Infrequent Fire would be in poor condition with a trend away from 

desired conditions. Cliffs would remain in good condition with a static trend. 

The likelihood that that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for Mexican spotted owl is 

moderate to high and varies by habitat as shown in table 53. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Mexican spotted owl’s F Rank of F2 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), Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate in short term and high in 

the long term), and cliffs (low) (table 9). 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 coarse 

filter habitats associated with Mexican spotted owl. This 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 and Mixed Conifer ERUs, this management effect rating is because plan 

language does not move these ERUs toward desired conditions. Alternative A contains outdated 

language for Mexican spotted owls, Gambel oak, and old growth and does not incorporate best 

available science. This rating is also because current guidelines create a window of opportunity 

that is so narrow as to essentially prevent the use of wildfires with resource objectives in 

wilderness (1987 Plan, pages 93 to 95, 111, 112). As a result, fire has not been allowed to play its 

natural role in wilderness, and departure from desired conditions has increased along with the risk 

of uncharacteristic fire under alternative A. Alternative A does not have forestwide desired 

conditions or objectives that specify restoration of natural fire regimes to address the threat of 

uncharacteristic fire, except in certain management areas. In addition, alternative A does not 

distinguish between the two mixed conifer types based on composition, structure, and function 

but rather plan language separates ponderosa and mixed conifer based on slope. 

Cliff habitat also has a management effect rating of 4, because plan components for cliffs are 

generally lacking and where there is guidance, it focuses on peregrine falcons.

While alternative A does not have plan components specific to cliffs, but it does contain plan 

language beneficial for peregrine falcons. These could be beneficial for the other cliff-dwelling 

species in locations where they share habitat with peregrine falcons. Alternative A also includes a 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

292

goal 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) and direction to apply the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan (1987 

Plan, page 206-11 through 13). The reference to the recovery plan is outdated because this species 

is no longer federally listed. There is similar guidance in the Flagstaff-Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Area (1987 Plan, pages 206-67, 116). There is also forestwide direction to reduce disturbance to 

nesting peregrines (1987 Plan, page 64-1). 

Standards and guidelines that minimize impacts to caves would be beneficial to wildlife species 

including Mexican spotted owl. Management activities planned near or within known cave areas 

are evaluated for their potential impacts, cave microclimate, hydrology, and entrance vegetation is 

maintained to preserve cave ecology, and during project planning, at least a 300-foot radius 

around cave entrances, infeeder drainages, and surface areas immediately over cave passages is 

maintained to minimize any negative effects on cave resources (1987 Plan, pages 51-1 to 51-2). 

In addition, caves of high resource values, and a suitable buffer area of approximately one-quarter 

mile from known cave passages, may be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry (1987 

Plan, page 51-2). This alternative includes some modest direction that could benefit the owl and 

its dispersal and overwintering habitat. There are goals that emphasize restoration of riparian 

communities and the species that depend on them and a broadly defined objective for 80 percent 

riparian recovery by 2030 (1987 Plan, page 28), likely unachievable given the current rate of 

implementation on the forest. Without specific measures and completion dates, it is unclear how 

such projects would get prioritized in the future. Beneficial guidelines emphasize restoration of 

high-elevation riparian communities particularly in the Lake Mary and Oak Creek watersheds, 

but are otherwise vague (1987 Plan, page 206-78). One guideline emphasizes the development of 

trails while protecting riparian communities and wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, page 206-79). There 

are also standards and guidelines specific to the owl for restricted habitat 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, streambanks, and channels should be prevented 

(1987 Plan, page 65-5). Alternative A also includes several standards and guidelines related to 

protecting water resources and stream riparian areas that would support Mexican spotted owl

habitat. 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 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 stream courses or wetlands (permanently or intermittently wet) are reducing 

hydrologic function (1987 Plan, page 206-71). For the riparian forest types, continued 

implementation of alternative A would slowly move the Cottonwood Willow riparian areas 

toward the desired condition of properly functioning condition, while the trend for Mixed 

Broadleaf Forest and Montane Willow Riparian forest type would remain static or slowly toward 

desired condition, depending on the watershed (see Riparian Areas, volume I). Overall guidance 

is positive and should provide foraging and dispersal habitat for the owl, as well as for its prey.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

293

Alterative A provides direction with an emphasis on timber production, other forest products, 

livestock grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, pages 117, 118). Uneven-aged 

management is emphasized and standard prescription guidelines are provided for ponderosa pine 

under various scenarios (1987 Plan, pages 130 to 135). Under this alternative, all pine-oak forests 

are considered to be Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat; in addition, pine-oak areas that are on 

slopes greater than 40 percent where timber harvest has not occurred in the last 20 years are also 

considered protected habitat (1987 Plan, page 65). Emphasis is placed on retaining relatively high 

densities and retaining and promoting large oaks (1987 Plan, pages 65 to 65-4). 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), harvest activities, however, even for the purpose of 

restoration, are limited. Prescribed fire is permitted through much of the protected and restricted 

areas except for select areas around nests designated for “no treatment” (1987 Plan, pages 65-2 to

65-4). Mechanical treatment in PACs is largely limited to fuelwood harvest and fire risk 

abatement. In addition, thinning is primarily limited to conifers less than 9 inches d.b.h. (1987 

Plan, page 65-2). In 10 percent of the restricted habitat, that would be managed for replacement 

nesting and roosting habitat, the basal area thresholds are higher than those identified under the 

current recovery plan for the owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). As a consequence of 

these standards and guidelines (1987 Plan, pages 65, 65-2 to 65-4), past treatments prescribed 

under the existing Forest Plan have left some areas with high tree densities that do not promote 

resilience and increase the forest’s susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks and 

uncharacteristic wildfires. In these areas, high tree densities limit Gambel oak and early seral 

species like aspen from establishing; however, guidance does favor the retention of large oaks in 

pine-oak forest/restricted habitat (1987 Plan, pages 65-4, 131). 

Direction for old growth under alternative A emphasizes standards and guidelines to maintain and 

promote development of owl habitat (1987 Plan, page 65-5). However, the minimum criteria used 

to determine structural attributes for old growth is very prescriptive; determined at the stand level 

(1987 Plan, page 70-2) and does not necessarily account for natural disturbance processes that 

frequently occur across multiple scales. Rather than having old-growth components present 

throughout the landscape, this approach tends to promote more even-aged conditions that could 

put old growth at risk from active crown fires that can lead to stand replacement. This even-aged 

stand structure would also limit recruitment of trees into the medium and larger size classes over 

time, reducing the structural complexity necessary for maintaining adequate roosting/ nesting 

habitat, and prey availability. In the short term, this prescriptive guidance may be beneficial to 

MSO; however, in the long term, owl habitat could be more subject to risk from stand-replacing 

fire, less well distributed and of a lesser quality than it could be. 

There are no specific treatment objectives for pine under this alternative; however, based on 

previous rate of treatment and the expected rate throughout implementation of the Four-Forest

Restoration Initiative, the VDDT model for ponderosa pine predicts that over the life of the plan, 

alternative A (as well as the other alternatives) would improve the vegetative structure and 

composition of the Ponderosa Pine ERU (see the discussion on Ponderosa Pine ERU in the 

Vegetation and Fire section in volume 1) and in so doing, would also reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire. Nesting/roosting habitat (represented by model states K, L, and M; Table C7, Volume 3) would also move toward desired conditions. Rate of treatment for this alternative 

would be from 150,000 (low) to 200,000 (high) acres for prescribed burns, and 50,000 (low) to 

260,500 (high) for mechanical treatment (Table C-1, Volume 3). At this rate of treatment, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

294

roosting/nesting habitat would move toward desired conditions, but would not be optimized. 

Snags of various sizes would be scattered across the landscape and are expected to remain static 

or increase. Overall, the ERU is expected to remain highly departed in the short term and become 

moderately departed after 15 years using the high treatment objective (see Ponderosa Pine, 

volume 1). 

Alternative A does not distinguish between Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Mixed Conifer 

with Infrequent Fire, but rather has one management area that is ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer less than 40 percent slope, and another management area that is greater than 40 percent

slope. Specific direction for mixed conifer in alternative A is vague particularly on how to 

maintain mixed conifer across multiple spatial scales, and lacks specific objectives (1987 Plan, 

pages 117,125,133,138). Direction on Mexican spotted owl habitat, however, is more specific but 

points to an outdated recovery plan that limits mechanical treatment of most trees over 9 inches 

d.b.h. This could limit the forest’s ability to significantly reduce tree densities to the level that risk 

from stand-replacing fire will be appreciably reduced. This direction is in conflict with the current 

recovery plan for the owl, which notes stand-replacing wildfires as the most significant threat to 

owl habitat and does not recommend diameter caps (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). 

Alternative A also has standards and guidelines for Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat that 

ensure nest/roost habitat is well distributed across the landscape, and that stand conditions are 

diverse and promote prey habitat, and that the old growth component is maintained. There is an 

emphasis on uneven-aged management (1987 Plan, pages 65-3 to 65-5). Direction for MSO 

allows for prescribed fires to meet resource objectives (1987 Plan, pages 65-2 to 65-4; 65-9), but 

given current densities, it will be difficult to achieve desired conditions through the use of fire 

without mechanical entry. Within mixed conifer, areas where higher tree density is maintained, 

such as within protected Mexican spotted owl habitat, the risk of uncharacteristic fire is still 

higher than elsewhere. Early seral species, such as aspen, may continue to decline where late seral 

species or closed canopy conditions are emphasized. Outside of protected habitat, mixed conifer 

would generally be managed as Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat with an emphasis on large 

trees, large hardwoods, large snags, and large downed woody debris (1987 Plan, pages 65 to 65-6; 

65-9 to 65-11). 

Like the Ponderosa Pine ERU, there are no specific, measurable objectives to treat mixed conifer 

under alternative A. The VDDT model for mixed conifer with frequent fire predicts that under the 

current rate of treatment, vegetation is expected to trend toward desired conditions during the life 

of the plan, but then become static (in 50 years). This includes states K, L, and M, which 

represent nesting/roosting habitat for the owl (see Vegetation and Fire, volume I pages 233-234, 

and Table C-1, volume 3). In the short term, owl habitat would slowly be improved, but in the 

longer term, progress would be more limited. This assumes rate of treatment would be similar to 

what has occurred over the past decade.

While prescribed fire and wildfires may be managed to meet resource objectives, under this 

alternative, wildfires within the wildland-urban interface must be suppressed rather than managed 

for resource objectives (1987 Plan, page 137). Where wildfires are permitted to function in their 

natural roles, appropriate open conditions would be maintained, essential nutrient cycling would 

occur, and age class diversity would be promoted. In the short term, maintenance of open 

conditions would slow encroachment of trees. In the long term, fire intervals that are closer to 

desired conditions would also encourage subdominant species such as aspen and Gambel oak. 

Any restriction on the natural role of fire would slow the pace at which desired conditions can be 

achieved and would increase the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires near communities and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

295

infrastructure. This alternative also places restrictions on the use of fire management in 

wilderness areas, the wildland-urban interface, and Oak Creek Canyon (1987 Plan, pages 93 to 

94), which would limit the forest’s overall ability to improve habitat conditions for the owl. 

There are no objectives for wildlife, fish, or rare plants under alternative A, but one standard 

(1987 Plan, page 64) directs habitat management for federally listed species to take precedence 

over management for non-listed species, that habitat management for endangered species will 

take precedence over threatened species, and to follow approved recovery plans. Additional 

guidelines under Wildlife Operations reiterate existing Forest Service Manual direction on 

consultation, emphasize inventory and monitoring, and minimize disturbance through seasonal 

timing restrictions (1987 Plan, pages 64 to 65). There are a number of standards specific to the 

owl; however, these are largely redundant with an outdated version of the Mexican Spotted Owl 

Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b) and some language is inconsistent with 

current thinking on restoration (e.g., mechanical treatments in PACS is limited) and desired 

conditions (1987 Plan, pages 65 to 65-5). 

Alternative A presents the least opportunity for implementing treatments, because it has 

constraints on using wildfires to meet resource objectives and a general lack of emphasis on the 

ecological need of frequent fire. Alternative A explicitly prohibits the use of wildfires with 

resource objectives in the wildland-urban interface and Oak Creek Canyon and limits its use in 

wilderness (1987 Plan, pages 92 to 94). This could hinder restoration efforts in owl habitat. 

Alterative A does, however, include guidelines for fire abatement and fuel treatment (1987 Plan, 

pages 65-2 to 65-3) that provide protection for owl PACS during fires, but also limits the types of 

treatments that can be done (e.g., no mechanical treatment of trees greater than 9 inches in 

diameter). This largely follows direction from the 1995 Recovery Plan, which is outdated.

Grazing is identified as a potential threat to the Mexican spotted owl if managed insufficiently to 

protect prey species habitat, nest/roost habitat, and the capacity for the land to support natural fire 

regimes (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). There are standards and guidelines specific to 

the owl for restricted habitat that emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian 

ecosystems for domestic livestock, which include: Implement forest plan forage utilization 

standards and guidelines to maintain owl prey availability, maintain potential for beneficial fire 

while inhibiting potential destructive fire, maintain and restore riparian ecosystems, and promote 

development of owl habitat, and strive to attain good to excellent range conditions that should 

provide good habitat for owl prey; however, this direction is rather vague in terms of intensity 

and use (1987 Plan, page 65-5). A standard prohibits grazing in the Sedona/Oak Creek Planning 

Area-MA 17 (1987 Plan, page 196-1). However, for the most part, plan direction for livestock 

grazing under alternative A is outdated and lacks clear direction including desired conditions or 

plan objectives to maintain or restore rangelands toward properly functioning or desired 

conditions. Alternative A describes a level of grazing management intensity (1987 Plan, page 

254), but this system does not tie to desired conditions in the management of range resources, 

including vegetative desired conditions. Guidelines in the amendment to incorporate the Mexican 

spotted owl recovery plan use a range condition classification system that is no longer used by the 

Forest Service and is outdated. 

Forest products are provided for personal and commercial uses at levels that are consistent with 

desired conditions, sustainable, and with consideration of other uses on the forest. There is 

language to integrate considerations of other resource areas, including wildlife habitat during 

timber management activities (1987 Forest Plan, page 23), that would be beneficial to the owl. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

296

There is management area guidance for the Sedona/Oak Creek area that removal such as firewood 

gathering, Christmas tree cutting, and livestock grazing should be designed to maintain or restore 

ecosystem health (1987 Plan, page 206-11) and that harvesting fuelwood when it can be done in 

such a way that effects on the owl are minimized. There are specific guidelines for fuel wood 

harvest in PACs that direct the retention of key habitat components such as snags and large 

downed logs and harvesting of conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only within PACs to abate 

fire risk as described below, except for the Clark PAC where trees less than 16 inches diameter 

will be harvested (1987 Plan, page 65-2). Additional direction for Forest Products under 

alternative A can be found under the different resources areas including the analyses for Soil, 

Vegetation and Fire (volume I).

There are goals and objectives to provide trail experiences that are consistent with protection of 

sensitive resources, meet the needs of a diverse public, emphasize the natural environment, and 

meet ROS objectives (1987 Plan, page 206-67). There is a very specific guideline that states that 

trails overlapping with Mexican spotted owl PACS occur should be designated in such a way as 

to minimize impacts to the owl, and to close and re-vegetate non-system trails in PACs not used 

for the designated trail (1987 Plan, page 206-68). This guidance would all help to minimize 

disturbance and human interaction with the owl. Additionally, under alternative A, new motorized 

and non-motorized trails would not be included in the schedule of activities. Evaluations could be 

made to determine the need for new trails; see section on Trails (volume I).

There are 38 management areas under this alternative. Plan direction as mentioned under the 

different program areas above would apply, as well as Forestwide standards and guidelines for 

Mexican spotted owl (1987 Plan, pages 65 through 65-11). Specific guidelines for MA-1 (West 

Fork of Oak Creek Canyon in wilderness) place limitations on recreation and camping, and 

specifically notes that camp areas should be located outside of PACs (1987 Plan, page 108-3). For 

the entire Sedona/Oak Creek planning area, there is a specific guideline to minimize any adverse 

recreational impacts to Mexican spotted owl and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, 

including closure and limitations on group size (1987 Plan, page 206-13). Similarly, guidelines in 

the FLEA (MA-35) also place restrictions on human activity within areas of nesting raptors 

including Mexican spotted owl (1987 Plan, page 206-67), lessen impacts from trails on PACs 

(1987 Plan, page 206-68), and habitat that potentially could be used for nesting, roosting, or 

breeding, and is within one-half mile of a proposed site-specific project boundary should be 

surveyed (1987 Plan, page 206-73). 

Of the 10 existing wilderness areas, Mexican spotted owl PAC and/or critical habitat occurs 

within 6 wilderness areas that the forest manages: Fossil Springs, Kachina Peaks, Munds 

Mountain, Red Rock-Secret Mountain, Sycamore Canyon, and West Clear Creek. The general 

management approach for these areas emphasizes solitude and allows natural ecosystem 

processes such as fire to play a role, an objective supports that vision (1987 Plan, page 108-1). 

This direction would minimize disturbance for the owl and allow for some habitat improvement. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

297

Table 54. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within designated wilderness areas managed 

by the Coconino NF 

Designated Wilderness Area

Wilderness 

Acres Within 

Forest 

Boundary

Wilderness 

Acres 

Managed 

Under Plan

PAC 

Acres (%)

Estimated 

Recovery 

Habitat1 

Critical 

Habitat 

Acres (%)

Fossil Springs Wilderness 10,431 10,431 1,597 (15) 735 (7) 5,693 (55)

Kachina Peaks Wilderness 18,705 18,705 1,328 (7) 4,769 (25) 18,705 (100)

Kendrick Mountain Wilderness 2,449 01 n/a n/a n/a

Mazatzal Wilderness 2,591 02 n/a n/a n/a

Munds Mountain Wilderness 18,093 18,093 550 (3) 6 (0) 0 

Red Rock-Secret Mountain 

Wilderness

48,097 48,097 9,607 (20) 0 29,377 (61)

Strawberry Crater Wilderness 10,404 10,404 0 1,006 (10) 0 

Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness

23,971 23,971 1,891 (8) 890 (4) 12,922 (54)

West Clear Creek 

Wilderness

15,459 15,459 4,356 0 6,806 (44)

Wet Beaver Wilderness 6,173 6,173 0 289 (5) 0 

1

Estimated by calculating 40 percent of the ponderosa pine acreage in the MA to estimate the amount of ponderosa pineGambel oak habitat, then adding the acreage outside of PACs for each of the other recovery habitat types (all mixed 

conifer and riparian forest types), then subtracting PAC acreage from that amount.

2

Managed by the Kaibab National Forest

3

Managed by the Tonto National Forest

Alternative B (modified)

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for the Mexican spotted owl was “may affect, 

likely to adversely affect” for both the species and its critical habitat, due to the potential for 

effects from some programs and activities. In its draft Biological and Conference Opinion 

received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b), the Fish and Wildlife 

Service determined that implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Mexican spotted owl, and would not be likely to destroy 

or adversely modify designated critical habitat. No incidental take was assigned. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service provided three discretionary conservation recommendations intended to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, or develop information. 

Table 51 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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, 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

298

(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. There would also be at least 

7,500 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire burned using wildfire managed for resource 

objectives. See FW-TerrERU-MC-All-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. Cliffs would remain in good condition and have a static trend relative to desired 

conditions. 

As shown in table 53, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

Mexican spotted owl is moderate to moderate-high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining the Mexican spotted owl’s F Rank of F2 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), and cliffs (low) (table 9). 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 Mexican spotted owl. 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 Ponderosa 

Pine, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, 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, this rating is based on desired 

conditions to maintain cliffs in generally undisturbed conditions from human activities, 

maintaining the geological, hydrological, and biological resources of these features (FW-BioPhyGeo-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 and uses would be 

managed to maintain the integrity and function of cliffs. Another desired condition 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). 

Mexican spotted owls use crevices, ledges, and caves in canyon walls, and they are a PCE for 

critical habitat. Several of the desired conditions in the Geological Features section include goals 

that relate to the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat. One desired condition envisions cave and 

cliff habitat that is undisturbed by human activities so that associated resource values are 

maintained (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). Several other desired conditions acknowledge that caves 

and cliffs provide habitat for species, including federally listed species (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-3, 

5). A guideline calls for designing projects and managing uses to maintain the integrity and 

function of caves and cliffs (FW-Bio-Phys-Geo-G-1). Canyon walls used by the Mexican spotted 

owl for nesting and roosting are usually fairly inaccessible to humans. The primary activity that 

could have impacts is rock climbing, but hiking, skiing or other recreational uses that go near 

nesting or roosting owls could cause disturbance as well. The goals and guidelines for Geological 

Features are expected to minimize or avoid any potential impacts, so effects are not likely to be 

adverse. Guidance related to geological features relates only to PCE 3c—canyon walls containing 

crevices, ledges, or caves. As described above, recreational activities can occur within or near this 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

299

PCE. Activities that could occur within canyon habitat would strive to keep habitat undisturbed 

(FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1), and would be required to maintain the integrity and function of caves 

and cliffs (FW-Bio-Phys-Geo-G-1). Therefore, effects on PCE 3c would be minimized, so that 

adverse effects are not expected. 

While riparian forests were used historically as nesting and roosting habitat, owls are not known 

to currently nest in predominately riparian habitat. On the forest, some riparian forest habitat 

occurs within PACs, but represents 1 percent or less of total PAC acreage (table 51). Riparian 

forest habitat outside of PACs (recovery habitat) could be used for dispersal, foraging, or 

wintering. Riparian forests are a component of the PCE related to forest structure. Riparian 

habitat is component of all three categories of critical habitat: forest structure (PCE 1a), adequate 

prey species (PCE 2b), and canyon habitat (PCE 3b). Recovery plan guidance would be applied 

to all projects associated with riparian forests (FW-WFP-G-1), lessening the potential for adverse 

effects. 

Although the Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire ERUs are the predominant habitats within PACs (table 51), seven other terrestrial 

ERU types occur as a small proportion of PAC habitat. This analysis will focus on the most 

dominant ERUs—Ponderosa Pine and the two Mixed Conifer subtypes—because they are the 

ERUs most likely to be affected by management, and also constitute critical habitat for the owl. 

In general, desired conditions for Terrestrial ERUs emphasize properly functioning and resilient 

ecosystems with a mosaic and variety of vegetation, connectivity, and ecologically sustainable 

amounts of products, including wood and forage which are all consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of Mexican spotted owl populations and habitat. Harvest to create openings and 

even-aged stands could negatively impact the Mexican spotted owl if these actions occur within 

PAC or recovery habitat, but several standards would moderate impacts by minimizing clear cut 

methods and limiting maximum open sizes to 40 acres (FW-TerrERU-All-S-1 to 4). Guidance in 

the Wildlife, Fish, and Plants section also includes a standard on timing restrictions to minimize 

disturbance from activities (FW-WFP-S-2), and a guideline to follow species protection measures 

from recovery plans (FW-WFP-G-1). These plan components would also aid in lessening 

potential impacts from cutting and harvest activities within Mexican spotted owl habitat and 

critical habitat. There are two guidelines to apply to projects and activities in all terrestrial ERUs 

that would minimize disturbance to the owl. One of the guidelines calls for minimizing impacts to 

other uses and resources when implementing vegetation treatments and other restoration activities

(FW-TerrERU-All-G-1). The other guideline calls for use of native species, when possible, for 

seeding after restoration activities, which would provide food and cover for Mexican spotted owl 

prey species (FW-TerrERU-All-G-3).

The scope and magnitude of impacts to Mexican spotted owl PAC and recovery habitat are 

dependent on additional guidance specific to the ERU in which they occur. These are addressed in 

the following sections. Vegetation treatments and other restoration activities can affect Mexican 

spotted owl critical habitat components for forest structure and prey species habitat. As noted 

above, standards constrain the use of clearcutting and methods designed to establish even-aged 

stands and opening sizes. And guidelines provide sideboards so that restoration activities will 

maintain or move toward desired conditions. Even so, restoration activities such as cutting and 

prescribed burning can affect forest structure, including canopy cover (PCE 1b) and large snags 

(PCE 1c), as well as downed logs and woody debris (PCE 2a), and tree and plant species (PCEs 

2b and 2c) that are components of critical habitat. The scope and magnitude of these impacts are 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

300

dependent on additional guidance specific to the ERU in which they occur. These are addressed in 

the following sections.

The greatest proportion of PAC acreage (73 percent) (table 51) and the largest amount of critical 

habitat (409,091 acres) occur within the Ponderosa Pine ERU. Much of the fuels reduction and 

restoration activities using cutting and burning will occur in this ERU over the life of the plan. 

Desired conditions acknowledge goals for providing habitat for the MSO (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC1). Detailed desired conditions describe vegetative structure, composition, and function at several 

scales for the ERU, including the pine-oak subtype. In general, the goals are to have a diverse, 

functioning ecosystem that supports frequent, low-severity fire (e.g., FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-2, 4, 

8, 9, 11, 13). Old growth is to occur throughout the landscape within uneven-aged forests (FWTerrERU-PP-DC-6, 9). The desired conditions also have goals to provide large snags and downed 

logs (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5, 7), a diversity of understory species (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-10), an 

element of dwarf mistletoe (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-14), and large oak trees and pine-oak groups 

that provide cooler moister microsites (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-15). These provide important 

components for nesting and foraging owls. 

In general, designing projects and activities to meet or move toward these desired conditions is

expected to be favorable to managing for the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat. The most 

influential management activities on Mexican spotted owl habitat include tree cutting and 

prescribed fire. While managing for openness (defined as the inverse of canopy cover) of 10 to 

70 percent at the landscape scale (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-4) would be counter to management for 

the denser and more closed canopy conditions owl favor for nest and roost habitat, the desired 

conditions allow for denser conditions in some areas at the mid-scale (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-8). 

Combined with the guideline to apply recovery plan guidance to projects (FW-WFP-G-1), 

moving toward these desired conditions protections and appropriate management for the owl will 

be achievable at the project level. 

The three objectives for the Ponderosa Pine ERU reflect the goal to treat and restore much of this 

ERU over the life of the plan: 

• FW-TerrERU-PP-O-1 calls for prescribed cutting of 50,000 to 260,500 acres each 

10-year period over the life of the plan, which equates to 6 to 33 percent of the ERU 

• Prescribed fire is planned on 150,000 to 200,000 acres (FW-TerrERU-PP-O-2), 

representing 19 to 25 percent of the ERU 

• Naturally ignited wildfires on at least 135,000 acres, or 17 percent of the ERU (FWTerrERU-PP-O-3) 

Breeding season restrictions are required in a standard (FW-WFP-S-2), which should avoid the 

potential for adverse effects from noise. While striving toward the desired conditions would be 

positive for the owl, it is unlikely that avoidance of adverse effects would occur on every project, 

but standards and guidelines would help to minimize these effects. Guidelines address protecting 

and perpetuating old-growth conditions and components, which would be beneficial when applied 

to PAC and pine-oak recovery habitat (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1 to 4). 

Overall, direction for the Ponderosa Pine ERU is expected to provide the goals, objectives, and 

guidelines that allow for appropriate management of the Mexican spotted owl PAC and pine-oak 

recovery habitat at the project level. They partly address the key threat to the owl of stand-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

301

replacing fire through thinning and prescribed burning. But some adverse effects could occur 

from site-specific activities.

There are 409,091 acres of critical habitat within the Ponderosa Pine ERU. Designing projects 

and activities to meet or move toward the desired conditions would be largely favorable for 

critical habitat components. A desired condition describes goals to have a mosaic of trees with 

varying age classes and understory vegetation, providing habitat for the Mexican spotted owl and 

other species (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-1). Moving toward this desired condition when 

implementing thinning, prescribed burning, and other projects within the Ponderosa Pine ERU 

would provide for forest structure PCEs including a range of tree species (PCE 1a) and a range of 

tree and plant species that provides prey habitat (PCE 2b). Goals for large snags, downed logs, 

coarse woody debris (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-5) support maintenance of PCEs 1c for large snags, 

and 2a for high volumes of fallen trees. Goals for the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak subtype 

support PCEs for a range of tree species (PCEs 1a and 2b). Another desired condition envisions 

all sizes and ages of oaks at the landscape scale. Large oak trees and snags are present, support 

PCE 1c for large snags (FW-TerrERU-PP-DC-7). 

Several guidelines address protecting and perpetuating old-growth conditions and components, 

which would be beneficial when applied to owl critical habitat components related to forest 

structure, particularly for large trees (PCE 1a), large snags (PCE 1c) and high volumes of downed 

logs and woody debris (PCE 2b) (FW-TerrERU-PP-G-1 to 4). Guidelines for specific habitat 

components emphasize large snags, downed logs, and slash to provide habitat for wildlife, which 

would help manage for MSO prey as described for PCE 2a (in FW-TerrERU-PP-G-5, 7). Overall 

for critical habitat, direction for the Ponderosa Pine ERU is expected to provide the goals, 

objectives, and guidelines that allow for appropriate management of the MSO critical habitat at 

the project level. However, some adverse effects could occur to PCEs for forest structure (PCEs 

1a-c) and maintenance of prey species (PCEs 2a-c) from site-specific activities. 

Mixed conifer is the other major habitat type important to the Mexican spotted owl on the forest. 

There is a total of 20,725 acres of Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire and Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire ERUs within PACs, representing approximately 18 percent of total PAC acreage 

(table 51). PAC acreage represents approximately 24 percent of total mixed conifer ERU acres 

(86,738 acres) (table 51). There is a total of 66,557 acres of mixed conifer habitat designated as 

critical habitat. Mixed conifer outside of PACs is considered recovery habitat. Alternative B 

(modified) includes desired conditions that are broken out into three categories: All Mixed 

Conifer ERUs, Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire. 

The desired conditions for All Mixed Conifer ERUs are fairly general, describing goals to have a 

mosaic of trees with varying age classes and understory vegetation, including Gambel oak trees

(FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1 to 4). These goals are to provide habitat for the Mexican spotted 

owl and other wildlife species.

The desired conditions for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire describe goals for landscape, midscale, and fine scale levels. Similar to ponderosa pine desired conditions, they describe general 

goals to have a resilient, diverse, and functioning ecosystem that supports frequent, low-severity 

fires (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11). Openness (defined as the inverse 

of canopy cover) ranges from 10 percent in more productive areas to 50 percent in less productive 

sites (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1). The desired condition for basal areas is for a range of 30

to 100 at the mid-scale (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-6). While managing at the higher end of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

302

openness at the landscape scale and for basal areas that range from 30 to 100 would be counter to 

Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan recommendations for management of owl nesting and 

roosting habitat, the desired conditions allow for denser conditions where needed to manage for 

the Mexican spotted owl (FW-TerrERU-MCFF-DC-6). Combined with the guideline to apply 

recovery plan guidance to projects (FW-WFP-G-1), protections and appropriate management for 

the owl will be achievable at the project level, but may not avoid adverse effects in all situations.

Desired conditions for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire envision old growth that occurs over 

large areas as stands or patches that contain old trees, snags, and downed wood (FW-TerrERUMC-MCFF-DC-2). Throughout Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, snags greater than or equal to 

18 inches in diameter, downed logs greater than 12 inches in diameter, and coarse woody debris 

occurs (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-3). 

Some of the desired conditions for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire are fairly similar to Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire, e.g., to have forest composition, structure, and function that are 

resilient to disturbances (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1) and to have large snags 18 inches or 

greater (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-6). Most MCIF desired conditions, though, paint a picture 

of a forest with a more closed canopy (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1) and higher basal with a 

greater number of large snags and more coarse woody debris (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-6). 

Fire is less frequent than in Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire, but fire severity is higher (FWTerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-7), so the desired conditions envision the possibility for openings of 10 

to 100 percent at the mid-scale (10 to 999 acres) as a result of disturbances. Management-created 

openings of these sizes (for example, aspen treatments) are not consistent with Mexican Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan recommendations for opening size and canopy cover in PAC and recovery 

nest/roost habitat. If openings are created greater than 2.5 acres within PAC or recovery nest/roost 

habitat, there could be adverse effects to the Mexican spotted owl. Placement and size of 

openings would be coordinated and determined at the project level, and recovery plan guidance 

would be considered (FW-WFP-G-1) in addition to desired conditions for MCIF, lessening the 

potential for adverse effects. 

At the mid-scale level within Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, goals are for tree densities of 

20 to 180 square feet basal area per acre (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-6), which encompasses 

the minimum basal area of 120 specified in the recovery plan for nest/roost recovery habitat. 

There are three objectives for Mixed Conifer ERUs, and all three apply to Mixed Conifer with 

Frequent Fire. This indicates that projects and activities are more likely to occur in Mixed Conifer 

with Frequent Fire than Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, although they could still occur in 

Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire F. Treatment of a proportionally large amount of the Mixed 

Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU is expected to be treated during each 10-year period over the life 

of the plan. These objectives are: 

• prescribed cutting of 2,900 to 15,000 acres (6 to 30 percent) (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFFO-1), 

• prescribed fire on at least 8,000 acres (16 percent or more) (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-O2), 

• naturally ignited wildfires on at least 7,500 acres (15 percent or more) (FW-TerrERUMC-MCFF-O-3). 

Because all mixed conifer habitat outside of PACs is recovery habitat, all of these treatments will 

be occurring in PAC and/or recovery habitat. Effects of these thinning and prescribed burning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

303

activities on the Mexican spotted owl are addressed in the relevant sections of this analysis. As 

projects and activities are implemented to meet objectives, and meet or move toward desired 

conditions, there are three guidelines that apply to both mixed conifer types that would benefit the 

owl. Retaining slash after treatments in areas where coarse woody debris is deficient (FWTerrERU-MC-All-G-1) would be beneficial in providing cover for Mexican spotted owl prey 

(PCE 2). A guideline calls for protecting existing and developing old growth from 

uncharacteristic disturbances using thinning and fire (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-G-2). Overall, most 

activities would be designed to meet or move toward desired conditions. While there may be 

some negative short-term effects on the MSO and its habitat during management treatments, these 

would be outweighed by the longer-term effects of having improved nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat. There is potential for some effects to have longer-term adverse effects, for 

example, if large openings are created within Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire recovery 

habitat. The guidance to follow approved recovery plans (FW-WFP-G-1) would lessen the 

likelihood of these adverse effects occurring. A large portion of mixed conifer ERUs is designated 

critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. There are 31,096 acres of Mixed Conifer with 

Infrequent Fire (84 percent of the ERU) and 35,461 acres of Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire 

(72 percent of the ERU). Desired conditions for mixed conifer encompass PCEs for critical 

habitat. Desired conditions are described for maintenance of a range of tree species (including 

hardwoods) and sizes (PCE 1a and 2b) in FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-1 and 3; FW-TerrERU-MCMCFF-DC-1, 7, 10, 11; and FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 5. Desired conditions relating to 

canopy cover for Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire describe goals for openness of 10 to 

50 percent (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-1, 6), equating to canopy closures of 50 to 90 percent.

This is consistent with maintenance of PCE 1b, which describes having 40 percent or greater 

canopy cover. Desired conditions for Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire envision the possibility 

of natural or management-created openings 10 to 999 acres in size (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIFDC-5), which would not be consistent with PCE 1b, unless implemented outside of critical habitat 

at the project level.

Snags 12 inches d.b.h. or greater are a PCE (1c) for critical habitat. Mixed conifer desired 

conditions describe maintenance of large oak snags (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-3), and specify 

managing for an average of three snags per acre 18 inches d.b.h. or greater across the landscape in 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire (FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-DC-3). An average of 1 to 5 snags 

per acre is the goal for the mid-scale in Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (FW-TerrERU-MCMCIF-DC-6). Since future projects and activities within mixed conifer ERUs will be developed 

and designed to meet or move toward desired conditions, snags 12 inches or greater (PCE 1c) are 

expected to be maintained within the mixed conifer ERUs.

Downed logs and woody debris, litter, and residual plant cover are PCEs for maintaining 

adequate prey (PCE 2a) and are important in canyon habitat (PCE 3d). Desired conditions are to 

manage for large downed logs and coarse woody debris across the landscape (FW-TerrERU-MCMCFF-DC-3; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-6). Therefore, projects within mixed conifer types 

would be expected to maintain PCEs 2a and 3d in owl critical habitat. 

Within the mixed conifer types, goals that support maintenance of plant cover and litter are 

described in several desired conditions (FW-TerrERU-MC-All-DC-2; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFFDC-1, 4; FW-TerrERU-MC-MCIF-DC-1, 4). While some activities in mixed conifer such as 

thinning and prescribed fire could impact PCEs for plant cover (PCE 2c) and ground litter (PCE 

3d) in the short term, managing to meet these desired conditions is expected to maintain or 

enhance these components in the long term. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

304

Due to the complexity in defining the wildland-urban interface, the forest does not have the 

wildland-urban interface identified spatially. For this analysis, it is assumed that there are portions 

of PACs and critical habitat within the wildland-urban interface. Goals for the wildland-urban 

interface include the ability to safely and efficiently suppress wildfires and to protect human life 

and property (FW-WUI-DC-1, 2). Collectively, the remainder of the desired conditions provide a 

vision for vegetative conditions, that is, forests are more open with fuel loading, snags, downed 

logs and coarse woody debris on the low end of the range for the specific ERU, and forests are 

dominated by early seral, fire-adapted species. Similarly, the one guideline calls for managing 

tree density, snags, logs, and coarse woody debris at the lower range of desired conditions for the 

ERU. Aiming for these conditions within the wildland-urban interface could adversely affect 

Mexican spotted owl PAC, recovery, and/or critical habitat, particularly PCE 1b, 1c, and 2a, but 

application of guidance in the recovery plan (per FW-WFP-G-1) would help moderate impacts. 

Suppression activities on naturally ignited wildfires are addressed through emergency 

consultation procedures. Alternative B (modified) would result in more acreage treated by 

wildfires managed for resource objectives and higher fire intensities in the wildland-urban 

interface compared to alternative A. Given that frequent fire decreases fire behavior (and resultant 

severity), this alternative would provide for more opportunities for fire treatments which would 

lead to less uncharacteristic fire behavior in the long term. 

Two objectives specifically reference listed species and could be implemented within Mexican 

spotted owl habitat or critical habitat:

• FW-WFP-O-1: Implement at least 20 activities that contribute to the recovery for 

federally listed species during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. An 

example of an activity could be thinning a Mexican spotted owl protected activity 

center to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to improve habitat conditions for 

prey species.

• FW-WFP-O-3: Restore or enhance at least 60,000 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan.

A variety of activities and projects could occur to implement these objectives. For the MSO, the 

most likely activities will be related to fuels reduction projects to reduce the key threat of standreplacing wildfires within PACs. Additionally, cutting or burning is expected to occur in a portion 

of recovery habitat to develop additional nesting/roosting habitat. These activities could have 

some short-term negative impacts, such as a reduction in the amount large woody debris or snags, 

or short term impacts of ground cover and litter. But since projects in this program would be 

planned and implemented to benefit the MSO and meet recovery plan guidance (FW-WFP-G-1), 

any adverse effects would be expected to be minor. These activities would have similar effects in 

designated critical habitat, with some adverse impacts to PCEs expected in the short-term, 

including PCE 1b for canopy closure, 1c for snags, 2a for downed logs and woody debris, and 2c 

for plant cover in order to reach longer-term goals.

Because stand-replacing wildfire is the key threat to the Mexican spotted owl (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2012b), fire management is a very important program for protection and 

recovery of the owl, particularly in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer ERUs. The desired 

conditions for fire management are generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of 

Mexican spotted owl populations and habitat (particularly FW-Fire-DC-2, 3). The goals of these 

two guidelines are that wildland fires burn within the historic fire regimes and that ecosystem 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

305

function is not lost. Two guidelines provide sideboards for fire management. One prioritizes the 

wildland-urban interface for fuels reduction activities (FW-Fire-G-1). The Mexican spotted owl

and/or its critical habitat could occur within wildland-urban interface areas, and goals for 

wildland-urban interface could be inconsistent with management for the MSO (see wildlandurban interface section above). The other guideline calls for designing fire management activities 

to be consistent with moving toward desired conditions for other resources (FW-Fire-G-2), which 

supports goals in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plants section for recovery (see FW-WFP-DC-2). Fuels 

reduction and fire management activities include thinning, burning, piling, building line by hand 

or dozer, and other activities. Fire management activities can impact both overstory and 

understory components important to owls (PCEs 1a-c, 2a-c, and 3d), and can result in disturbance 

to owls if they occur near occupied habitat. Given limited guidance or sideboards on fire 

management activities in this section, these activities could result in disturbance or impacts to the 

Mexican spotted owl or its habitat, so impacts to owls and habitat could occur even while moving 

toward desired conditions for other resources (FW-Fire-G-2). Goals and other guidance in other 

sections of the plan would apply (particularly Ponderosa Pine; Mixed Conifer; Wildlife, Fish and 

Plants), with the expectation that most negative impacts would be short term, while improving 

conditions for the owl in the long term.

Livestock grazing has the potential to impact prey habitat, which would impact the PCE relating 

to maintenance of adequate prey species. A grazing desired condition envisions that livestock 

grazing is consistent with desired conditions for other resources (which would include listed 

species) (DC-FW-Graz-DC-2); however, the levels and intensity of grazing is determined through 

allotment-specific analysis and should be at levels that move toward desired conditions for 

resources. Improvements are considered through allotment-specific analysis or separate analyses 

for new or individual improvements. A grazing guideline calls for managing livestock grazing to 

meet or move toward desired conditions for other resources, including species (FW-Graz-G-2), so 

this would be positive for the Mexican spotted owl and its critical habitat. The other guidelines 

are generally consistent with habitat for prey populations, focusing on resting treated areas to 

ensure plant recovery (FW-Graz-G-3), and protection of riparian habitats (FW-Graz-G-4, 5, 7). 

These guidelines are positive for protecting PCEs for riparian forests (PCE 1a) and residual cover 

for prey species (PCE 2c), and any effects to PCEs are expected to be insignificant or 

discountable. 

There are three categories of forest products: (1) timber, (2) special forest products, and (3) forest 

botanical products. Harvesting activities for timber products is likely to be most influential on the 

Mexican spotted owl and its habitat within the Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer ERUs. These 

activities can include firewood collection, harvest for sawtimber and pulpwood, and other 

products. Harvesting can directly impact Mexican spotted owl habitat structure (e.g., PCEs 1a-b), 

along with associated activities such as piling, creating temporary haul roads, etc. While shortterm negative effects can be expected from implementation of the forest Products program, these 

should usually result in improvement in conditions in the long term. One exception is firewood 

cutting. Because no sideboards or guidance are provided for woodcutting in habitat, including 

critical habitat, there could be adverse effects to the standing snags and downed logs. Desired 

conditions describe goals for providing a sustainable supply of forest products (FW-FProd-DC-1) 

using silivicultural treatments that reflect natural disturbance patterns and consider other values 

and resources (FW-FProd-DC-2). Timber harvest activities and systems should be designed and 

used to meet ecological and social desired conditions (FW-FProd-G1, 2), which would include 

the Mexican spotted owl. While this section does not specify objectives, explicit objectives for 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

306

cutting to produce forest products and meet a variety of desired conditions are found in other 

sections. The majority of cutting activities are anticipated to occur within Pinyon Juniper with 

Grass, Ponderosa Pine, and Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERUs:

• FW-TerrERU-PJ-O-1: Mechanically treat between 1,000 and 10,000 acres of Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass during each 10-year period over the life of the plan.

• FW-TerrERU-PP-O-1: Use prescribed cutting to treat 50,000 to 260,500 acres of 

Ponderosa Pine during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

• FW-TerrERU-MC-MCFF-O-1: Use prescribed cutting to treat 2,900 to 15,000 acres of 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire during each 10-year period over the life of the plan. 

Other less explicit objectives designed to restore or enhance habitat, could result in forest 

products. Examples include:

• FW-TerrERU-AspMpl-O-1: Restore at least 1,000 acres of aspen and maple during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan. Restoration could include, but is not limited to, 

activities that promote regeneration, remove competing vegetation, or remove 

disturbances that could negatively impact aspen or maple. 

• FW-WFP-O-3: Restore or enhance at least 60,000 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat 

during each 10-year period over the life of the plan.

While overall guidance is scant for Forest Products, direction from all other relevant sections on 

the plan would be applied to the Mexican spotted owl, its habitat, and critical habitat when 

implementing projects. While there could be some site-specific adverse effects, usually shortterm, the collective guidance is expected to maintain or improve conditions for the Mexican 

spotted owl in most cases. The lack of sideboards on firewood cutting could impact critical 

habitat PCEs for snags and downed wood (PCEs 1c and 2a). 

There are currently two trailheads and approximately 55 miles of developed trails within PACs.

There are 27 trailheads and 327 miles of trails within critical habitat. Desired conditions for Trails 

and Trailheads express goals to have a system of trails and trailheads that provide a variety of 

experiences, including motorized and non-motorized opportunities. One of the desired conditions 

expresses the goal that damage to resources from the use of trails and trailheads is minimal, and it 

can be mitigated or restored (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-4). There is an objective to develop or modify 2 

to 8 systems of trails to provide for user groups and reduce conflicts between these groups (FWRec-Trails-O-1). This would not impact the MSO unless new trails would be placed in its habitat.

If that were being proposed, a guideline should help ensure that the design would address impacts 

to other resources, including the Mexican spotted owl (FW-Rec-Trails-G-1), and other relevant 

plan guidance would apply as well. Another guideline calls for management of unplanned, usercreated trails so that resources damaged by these trails can be rehabilitated (FW-Rec-Trails-G-3). 

If this guideline is applied to unplanned, user-created trails within Mexican spotted owl habitat, 

this would help restore habitat. Collectively, activities related to developed and dispersed 

recreation, and recreational use of trails and trailheads could have impacts to Mexican spotted 

owl and/or its habitat; however, guidance primarily contained within desired conditions and 

guidelines does include consideration of other resources in the design and management of 

recreation activities and trails, which would help minimize potential impacts.

Of the 18 management areas in alternative B (modified), 15 overlap with the Mexican spotted owl

PACs and/or critical habitat (table 55). Relatively high acreage of PAC habitat occurs in the C.C. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

307

Cragin, East Clear Creek, Lake Mary, Long Valley, Pine Belt, and Red Rock MAs (table 55). The 

same is true for critical habitat, with the addition of the San Francisco Peaks MA, which contains 

over 41,000 acres of critical habitat (table 55). 

Table 55. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within proposed plan management areas

Proposed Plan 

Management Area

Proposed Plan 

Management Area 

Acres

PAC Acres 

(% of MA)

Estimated 

Recovery Habitat*

Critical Habitat 

Acres (% of MA)

Anderson Mesa 272,731 2,012 (<1) 20,289 (7) 13,443 (5)

C.C. Cragin 

Watersheds

45,711 11,732 (26) 18,272 (40) 43,933 (96)

East Clear Creek 53,124 8,612 (16) 24,693 (46) 42,834 (81)

Flagstaff 

Neighborwoods

53,105 171 (<1) 14,713 (28) 3,655 (7)

Inner Basin 

Watershed

1,057 0 82 (8) 1,057 (100)

Lake Mary 51,260 8,574 (17) 11,108 (22) 19,563 (38)

Long Valley 164,055 24,476 (15) 42,024 (26) 123,396 (75)

Mount Elden 17,774 2,552 (14) 8,002 (45) 11,121 (63)

Oak Creek Canyon 6,054 47 (<1) 840 (14) 3,158 (52)

Pine Belt 426,832 40,492 (9) 109,661 (26) 192,485 (45)

Red Rock 105,599 10,730 (10) 0 33,376 (32)

San Francisco Peaks 57,861 4,494 (8) 24,615 (43) 41,217 (71)

Verde Valley 323,457 1,354 (<1) 4,947 (2) 8,072 (2)

Volcanic Woodlands 157,781 0 16,583 (11) 413 (<1)

Walnut Canyon 21,723 1,830 (8) 5,249 (24) 12,758 (59)

*Estimated by calculating 40% of the ponderosa pine acreage in the MA to estimate the amount of ponderosa pineGambel oak habitat, then adding the acreage outside of PACs for each of the other recovery habitat types (all mixed 

conifer and riparian forest types), then subtracting PAC acreage from that amount.

Overall, direction for the Mexican spotted owl within designated wilderness areas is sparsely and 

indirectly described. However, other guidance in the plan would apply, such as to apply habitat 

management objectives and species protection measures from recovery plans when activities are 

being planned (FW-WFP-G-1). Activities that are anticipated in wilderness areas include 

managed fire, trail building and maintenance, and dispersed recreation. Some could have negative 

impacts on owls and their habitat at least in the short term. Management direction and potential 

impacts from those activities are addressed in the relevant section of this analysis. Goals that 

support management of federally listed species are reflected in desired conditions that call for 

retaining the full range of ecological values (SA-Wild-DC-1), having properly functioning 

ecosystems and ecological resources (SA-Wild-DC-2), and having properly functioning habitat 

that supports natural assemblages of native species (SA-Wild-DC-3). One objective calls for 

developing and implementing management plans for any newly designated wilderness areas 

within 5 years of designation (SA-Wild-O-2). None of the three recommended wilderness areas 

contain PACs and only Abineau contains a small amount of critical habitat (table 56) (see next 

section). If Abineau is designated, a management plan that incorporates Mexican spotted owl

habitat needs could be beneficial. Two standards indirectly support the Mexican spotted owl by 

limiting group size (SA-Wild-S-1), which could reduce disturbance to habitat and populations, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

308

and by only permitting group activities that promote wilderness values (SA-Wild-S-2), which 

includes native species. 

Recommended Wilderness

Three areas are being recommended for wilderness designation—Abineau, Davey’s, and 

Strawberry Crater. None of the three contain PAC habitat; Davey’s and Strawberry Crater contain 

small acreages of estimated recovery habitat that would need to be ground verified at the project 

level. Almost all of Abineau is Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire MCIF ERU, plus a small 

amount of Ponderosa Pine, so that is reflected in the estimated amount of recovery habitat. Only 

Abineau contains critical habitat. See table 56 for all designated and estimated acreages. 

Table 56. Mexican spotted owl PAC and critical habitat within recommended wilderness areas 

managed by Coconino NF 

Wilderness Area

Wilderness 

Acres Within 

Forest 

Boundary

Wilderness 

Acres 

Managed 

Under Plan

PAC 

Acres 

(%)

Estimated 

Recovery 

Habitat*(%)

Critical Habitat 

Acres 

Abineau 415 415 0 374 (90) 415

Davey’s 1,739 1,739 0 8 (0) 0 

Strawberry Crater 6,579 6,579 0 12 (0) 0 

* Estimated by calculating 40% of the ponderosa pine acreage in the MA to estimate the amount of ponderosa pineGambel oak habitat, then adding the acreage outside of PACs for each of the other recovery habitat types (all mixed 

conifer and riparian forest types), then subtracting PAC acreage from that amount.

Overall, guidance for these special areas emphasizes maintaining and enhancing ecological 

conditions, limiting human use, with the expected result of minimal habitat and disturbance 

impacts to the Mexican spotted owl. 

Mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable except on designated trails. This 

would affect 322 acres of the Immigrant PAC and 340 acres of critical habitat in the Mogollon 

Rim botanical area. There are no other PACs or critical habitat in botanical or geological areas. 

Allowing bicycles on designated trails in botanical and geological areas would slightly increase 

disturbance to the Immigrant PAC owls. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is the same as alternative B (modified), except it retains old growth guidance from 

the 1987 plan (see alternative A, above) and adds more wilderness areas and limitations on 

disturbance (motorized use and shooting). 

With respect to old growth, alternative C differs from alternative B (modified) in that it also 

incorporates all of the direction (with some minor adjustments) associated with old growth from 

the 1987 Plan (alternative A). In effect, there is guidance to retain, protect, and promote old 

growth and desired conditions that emphasize providing for as much old growth as can be 

sustained on the landscape, but there is also guidance to maintain old-growth stands of 100 to 

300 acres and to allocate at least 20 percent of each forest or woodland ERU within any 6th code 

watershed to old growth, based on minimum structural attributes. Retaining these 1987 Plan 

standards and guidelines for old growth would have positive impacts on the Mexican spotted owl. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

309

Direction for old growth under alternative A emphasizes standards and guidelines to maintain and 

promote development of owl habitat (1987 Plan, page 65-5). However, the minimum criteria used 

to determine structural attributes for old growth is very prescriptive (100- to 300-acre stands over 

no less than 20 percent of each forested ecosystem management area in a 10,000-acre block); 

determined at the stand level (1987 Plan, page 70-2). Alternative A distributes old growth and 

does not necessarily reflect natural disturbance processes. Rather than having old-growth 

components present throughout the landscape, this approach tends to promote more even-aged 

conditions which could put old growth at risk from active crown fires that can lead to stand 

replacement. This even-aged stand structure would also limit recruitment of trees into the medium 

and larger size classes over time, reducing the structural complexity necessary for maintaining 

adequate roosting/ nesting habitat, and prey availability. In the short term, this prescriptive 

guidance may be beneficial to Mexican spotted owl; however, in the long term, owl habitat could 

be more subject to risk from stand-replacing fire, less well distributed and of a lesser quality than 

it could be. 

In addition to the recommended wilderness areas in alternative B (modified) (Abineau, 

Strawberry Crater Addition, and Davey’s), alternative C includes 10 additional recommended 

wilderness areas (Barbershop, Black Mountain, Cedar Bench, Cimarron-Boulder, Deadwood 

Draw, East Clear Creek, Hackberry, Railroad Draw, Tin Can, and Walker Mountain). Of the 13 

proposed wildernesses, there are portions of 13 PACs totaling 2,702 acres within 4 of the 

proposed wilderness areas (Barbershop, East Clear Creek, Railroad Draw, and Tin Can). This 

represents 2.3 percent of the 118,314 acres within PACs. The portion of PACs within the 

Barbershop and East Clear Creek Recommended Wilderness Areas are already within the 

Barbershop and East Clear Creek Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), so there would be little 

additional benefit to designation as wilderness. Designation of the other recommended wilderness 

areas would reduce disturbance to Mexican spotted owl from fewer management activities, and 

recreation use that is managed to preserve wilderness character. Although mechanical thinning 

treatments would not be allowed, the application of fire could still be used to improve habitat 

conditions. Overall, designation of wilderness would have a small positive impact on the Mexican 

spotted owl compared to alternatives A and B (modified). Alternative A recommends no new 

wildernesses, and the recommended wilderness areas in alternative B (modified) contain no

Mexican spotted owl PACs.

Alternative C is the only alternative that has areas designated as not suitable for recreational 

shooting (Appendix F, table 2). The designation of management areas as not suitable for 

recreational shooting would result in reduced disturbance within 38,917 acres of PACs within the 

Flagstaff Neighborwoods, Long Valley, Sedona Oak Creek, and Walnut Canyon MAs (table 57). 

Designating these areas as not suitable for recreational shooting will benefit the Mexican spotted 

owl by reducing disturbance to daytime nesting and roosting owls. 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

310

Table 57. Number and acreage of protected activity centers (PAC) within management areas 

Management Area Number of PACs PAC Acres

Flagstaff Neighborwoods 1 171

Long Valley 54 26,187

Sedona/Oak Creek 22 10,678

Walnut Canyon 5 1,881

Totals: 82 38,917

Note: The number of PACs reflects those with all or a portion of their boundaries within management areas.

Alternative C is also the only alternative that has a suitability determination on snowmobile use 

(Appendix F, table 2). Designating the Walnut Canyon Management Area and areas with a 

recreation opportunity spectrum objective of “semi-primitive non-motorized” as not suitable for 

snowmobile use, except to provide ingress/egress for private inholdings would have a positive 

impact on the five PACs within the boundary by reducing disturbance to roosting owls. 

Alternative C includes a guideline that states that livestock grazing should be excluded from 

research natural areas unless the grazing supports or would not affect the area’s research purpose 

(Appendix F, SA-RNABotGeo-G-4). There are portions of 5 PACs totaling 1,245 acres within the 

Oak Creek Research Natural Area and portions of 2 PACs totaling 175 acres in the Rocky Gulch 

Research Natural Area. Compared to alternative B (modified), restricting grazing would have 

only a small positive impact on the Mexican spotted owl by improving cover and food production 

and availability for prey species because little to no grazing occurs in these areas. 

Mechanized use in botanical and geological areas is not suitable, even on designated trails. This 

would affect 322 acres of the Immigrant PAC and 340 acres of critical habitat in the Mogollon 

Rim botanical area. There are no other PACs or critical habitat in botanical or geological areas. 

Not allowing bicycles on designated trails in botanical and geological areas would slightly 

decrease disturbance to the Immigrant PAC owls compared to the other alternatives. 

A total of nine management areas are proposed to emphasize reduced human-related disturbance. 

They are: Anderson Mesa, Pine Grove, Jack’s Canyon, East Clear Creek, Second Chance, Blue 

Ridge, Limestone Pasture, Hospital Ridge, and Knoll Lake. All of these management areas 

contain critical habitat and all contain or are adjacent to PACs. Desired conditions for these 

management areas promote ecological integrity of watersheds and native vegetation, protection of 

springs, streams, old growth in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer ERUs, corridors, properly 

functioning wildlife habitat, understory that provides sufficient habitat and cover for wildlife, 

natural fire regimes, low disturbance in canyons and steep slopes, and emphasis on Mexican 

spotted owls (MA-AMesa-DC-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, MA-PGrove-DC- 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, MA-JackDC-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, MA-EastClr-DC-1,3, 4, 5, 6, 9, MA-ScndChnc-DC-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, MA-1, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 9, 11, MA- 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, MA-HospRdg-DC-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, MAKnollLake-DC-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12). 

Guidelines for these management areas would limit public access to reduce disturbance from 

motorized vehicle traffic; would not allow an increase in the area of motorized dispersed camping 

corridors designated in the MA; and would not allow large group recreation events or large 

commercial tours except in developed sites (MA-AMesa-G-1, 2, 4, MA- PGrove-G-1, 2, 3, MAJack-G-1, 2, 3, MA-EastClr-G-1, 2, 3, MA-ScndChnc-G-1, 2, 3, MA-BlueRidge-G-1, 2, 3, MALimestone-G- 1, 2, 3, MA-HospRdg-G-1, 2, 3, MA-KnollLake-G-1, 2, 3). In addition, there 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

311

would be a limit on public road density (not to exceed an average of 1 mile of road per square 

mile) in the Anderson Mesa MA (MA-AMesa-G-3).These desired conditions and guidelines could 

positively affect Mexican spotted owls because of the emphasis on this species and their habitats 

and reduced disturbance from recreational and motorized uses of the area. 

Alternative D

The consequences of alternative D are very similar to alternative B (modified). The forest 

proposes alternative D to be responsive to public recommendations for no additional wilderness 

areas and to allow biking in botanical and geological areas on designated trails (like alternative B 

(modified). Alternative D differs from the proposed action in the following ways: 

• Recommends no new wilderness area;

• Allows mechanized recreation (e.g., bikes) on designated trails in botanical and 

geological areas;

• Allows for expansion and/or increased access for future energy corridors needs, and 

modifies scenic integrity objectives along existing energy corridors.

Not adding any new wilderness areas would mean that 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. Therefore, impacts 

would not be as positive for Mexican spotted owl as alternatives C and B (modified). 

Alternative D 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 on the Mexican spotted owl. 

Findings 

The finding for all alternatives is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect for the species and 

critical habitat. All alternatives would contribute to species viability by providing the 

compositional and structural habitat elements needed by the owl and its prey and reducing the 

risk of uncharacteristic stand-replacing fire, which is the primary threat to the owl. Nesting and 

roosting habitat is expected to move toward desired conditions under all alternatives. All 

alternatives would follow guidance in the approved Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and 

integrate direction that would benefit the owl and its habitat, including conservation actions under 

7(a)(1). 

Language in alternative A contributes less to viability than the other alternatives. Plan language is 

based on an outdated recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b) that does not 

incorporate the latest science on Mexican spotted owl needs, or recognize current thinking on 

forest restoration practices and natural disturbance processes. The forest would still follow 

direction in the revised recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b); however, plan 

amendments could be required where plan direction conflicts with current Fish and Wildlife 

Service recommendations. As described above, there is also outdated language regarding old 

growth, Gambel oak, livestock grazing, and there are restrictions on the ability to use wildfire for 

resource objectives in wilderness, wildland-urban interface, and Oak Creek Canyon. Forestwide 

plan language for cliffs is lacking. Alternative A would reduce fire risk, promote the growth of 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

312

Gambel oak, maintain and protect larger trees, reduce noise disturbance during the breeding 

season, protect and maintain dispersal and wintering habitat; however, outdated language on 

current restoration practices would likely limit the overall amount of habitat the forest would 

move toward desired conditions during the life of the plan. In addition, activities may be 

permitted that may have adverse effects to individual owls or critical habitat. These could include 

communication sites, powerline corridor maintenance, fuels reduction, watershed management 

projects, and livestock grazing. These types of activities have occurred in the past and are likely 

to occur into the foreseeable future. See sections on Vegetation and Fire, Fire Management and 

Wildland-urban Interface in Volume I for additional detail on those program areas. 

Alternative B (modified) contributes more to the viability of Mexican spotted owls than 

alternative A because it emphasizes uneven-aged management and the restoration and 

maintenance of ecosystem health, has specific, measurable objectives, and incorporates current 

scientific thinking on the owl, climate change, and ecosystem restoration. While the plan 

generally strives to move degraded ERUs toward historical reference conditions, some programs 

and activities could have adverse effects to the Mexican spotted owl and its habitat as projects are 

implemented to reach those goals. Additionally, some plan components (i.e., desired conditions) 

may place emphasis on particular activities that could have negative impacts to the owl and its 

habitat. Overall coordination and implementation of all of the guidance in the plan is expected to 

minimize potential impacts, but not to the point where they will be insignificant or discountable 

over the life of the plan. While it is difficult to predict the scope and intensity of effects of future 

projects, future projects under several program areas could result in adverse effects, at least in the 

short term, including the Wildland-urban Interface, Fire, Forest Products (for firewood gathering), 

Scenic Resources (as relates to implementing fire and forestry projects), and Special Areas 

(primarily the Red Rock MA guidance). The types of impacts and effects for critical habitat are 

similar to the effects to the Mexican spotted owl with most negative impacts being short term. 

Forest plan desired conditions include cliffs, generally describe improved conditions for resources 

over the life of the plan, and standards and guidelines provide sideboards to project 

implementation. Alternative B (modified) is based on current scientific thinking with regard to 

Mexican spotted owl and forest restoration practices, and includes guidance to incorporate the 

most current recovery plan for the owl. Alternative B (modified) also includes management 

objectives that are specific and measurable for the primary ERUs used by the owl. This will better 

allow the forest to assess its progress over time and to revise the plan when and if necessary so it 

can continue to move toward desired conditions. Although there may be some short-term negative 

impacts under implementation of alternative B (modified), the overall approach should be 

positive for the owl, maintaining viability through quality, well-distributed habitat. 

In general, under alternative B (modified), forest conditions would be better able to withstand 

climate change-related disturbances over time. Habitat for the owl, including old growth, would

be provided for as a shifting mosaic across the landscape reflecting natural disturbance regimes. 

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified) except it could make slightly more 

improvements in critical habitat than the other three alternatives through the addition of more 

wilderness acres and minimized disturbance. However, restoration activities in wilderness areas 

would also be more limited under this alternative, and as result, those areas could be more 

susceptible to uncharacteristic high-intensity fire, making the net positive gain for the owl small.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

313

Alternatives C and A have more prescriptive language for providing important structural 

components for old growth at the stand level, e.g., 100- to 300-acre stands; however, some 

guidance is not in line with current restoration practices and could limit optimal distribution of 

owl habitat across the landscape over time. These stands may be more vulnerable to 

uncharacteristic fire or uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects or disease. 

Alternative D is similar to alternative B (modified) except there is no recommended wilderness. 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL)

Affected Environment 

The forest has been taking actions to improve the status of the southwestern willow flycatcher, 

which was listed as endangered in 1995. These actions would continue under all alternatives. For 

example, the forest considers needs for the species in project design, analyzes effects of the 

project within the NEPA process, and consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service as needed.

Trained personnel survey for flycatchers and monitor potential habitat most years. In 1997, two 

Coconino biologists participated on a Regional team (one as team leader) to visit southwestern 

willow flycatcher sites and habitat throughout the Southwestern Region. The team identified 

critical short-term management actions, and long-term management direction, which was 

subsequently issued to all forests in the Region by the Regional Forester. 

Distribution

These endangered neotropical migrants nest in the southwestern United States and winter in 

Mexico and central and South America. There are known populations of nesting willow 

flycatchers at various sites on private land along the Verde River. Migrating individuals and 

floater males (single singing males during the breeding season) have been detected on Forest 

Service land in four areas: Dry Beaver Creek at Stagestop, Sheepshead Spring, Wet Beaver 

Creek, and West Clear Creek Campground). Breeding flycatchers have been monitored at 

Tuzigoot bridge and Tavasci Marsh (both extirpated sites), and Superior (also known as the Camp

Verde site). Other sites on private land where flycatchers have been detected but not monitored 

include private land downstream of the Hwy 260/West Clear Creek bridge (single flycatcher 

detected in 1997) and three other sites along the Verde on private land between White bridge and 

the West Clear Creek confluence (of these, only the site within Section 7 has documented 

breeding flycatchers).

Habitat

Suitable and potential habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers mainly occurs below the 

Mogollon Rim along various perennial streams in the Verde Valley. Much of their habitat is 

located in the Verde Wild and Scenic River corridor. Some potentially suitable habitat occurs 

above the Mogollon Rim. They generally nest in areas where quiet water is present from April 

through September in riparian thickets with dense understory and midstory vegetation. In the 

Verde Valley, nesting willow flycatchers occur in tamarisk and mixed riparian habitats in patches 

varying from 460 feet to 1,640 feet in width (Sferra et al. 1995) and 5 to 121 acres in size 

(Spencer et al. 1996). They are associated with Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, 

and Montane Willow riparian forest types and springs. These habitats are more fully evaluated in 

the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

314

Critical Habitat: The final rule to designate critical habitat for the southwestern willow 

flycatcher was published on October 19, 2005 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011c). The Fish 

and Wildlife Service designated stream segments in 24 Management Units found in six Recovery 

Units as critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013a). Critical habitat on the forest occurs along portions of three of the five stream segments 

that make up the Verde Management Unit within the Gila Recovery Unit. The three segments are:

• Segment 1 is 26.1 miles long and begins above Tuzigoot National Monument 

downstream to the north end of Yavapai Apache Tribal land. 

• Segment 2 is 9.5 miles long and begins at the south end of Yavapai Apache Tribal land 

downstream to the north end of a different parcel of Yavapai Apache Tribal land. 

• Segment 3 is 8.7 miles long and begins at the south end of Yavapai Apache Tribal land 

downstream to Beasley Flat.

Land ownership along these segments of the Verde River is mixed, with the majority being nonCoconino National Forest land. The Verde forms the forest’s southwestern boundary with the 

Prescott National Forest. Additionally, there is private land, other Federal land, and other land 

ownership designations throughout this critical habitat. There is approximately 474 acres of 

designated critical habitat on the forest, which represents only 0.6 percent of the 79,856 acres of 

critical habitat in Arizona (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). 

A proposed rule to revise critical habitat was published on August 15, 2011 (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011c). There are about 549 acres of proposed critical habitat on the forest. The 

current designation remains in effect throughout the rulemaking process for revised designation. 

Critical habitat on the forest occurs in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Verde Management Unit 

under both rules. Within the upper Verde segment, the proposed rule designates 4.2 miles more 

than the existing rule. Much of the Verde River within proposed and designated critical habitat 

flows through lands of other ownership, and only 358 acres (29 percent) of 1,238 acres are on the 

Coconino NF. 

Primary constituent elements for existing critical habitat and proposed critical habitat are listed 

below. Both rules list riparian vegetation and insect prey as the two primary constituent elements. 

The main difference is that riparian habitat in the proposed rule is expanded from riverine 

systems to include lakeside, natural or manmade habitat.

Primary constituent elements are riparian vegetation and insect prey populations. Riparian habitat 

occurs along a river, lake, or a natural or human-made environment that supports trees and shrubs 

suitable for nesting, foraging, migration, dispersal, and shelter. Insect prey populations include a 

variety of species found within or adjacent to moist or floodplain environments. 

The riparian forest types that contain critical habitat on the Coconino are Cottonwood Willow 

(approximately 376 acres) and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (approximately 35 

acres). Other habitats that could potentially support southwestern willow flycatcher include 

Montane Willow, Wetlands, and Springs. 

Overall, the riparian forest types are low to moderately departed from reference conditions with 

approximately 62 percent in proper functioning condition (PFC), 28 percent functional-at-risk, 

4 percent non-functional, and 1 percent are of unknown condition (USDA Forest Service 2016b).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

315

Risk Factors

Habitat loss and modification is the primary cause of the species’ decline. This is mainly due to 

dams and reservoirs, diversions and groundwater pumping, channelization and bank stabilization, 

phreatophyte control, livestock grazing, recreation, fire, agricultural development, and 

urbanization. Another threat is changes in the abundance of other species such as exotic plant 

species and brood parasitism. The small populations of southwestern willow flycatcher are 

vulnerable because there are a small number of territories in very small breeding groups and these 

isolated groups are vulnerable to local extirpation from many factors. The small populations of 

southwestern willow flycatcher create concerns about low genetic variation, inbreeding, and low 

effective population size. Finally, stopover and overwintering habitats are subject to the same 

risks noted above for breeding habitat. These habitats are important so flycatchers can replenish 

their energy reserves and migration is a period of high energy demands. 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of the analysis includes critical habitat, and Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forest habitat that supports potential habitat. The transient and floater 

flycatchers detected on the forest occurred in these ERU types. The analysis below focuses on 

those risk factors and program areas that would be most consequential in terms of maintaining 

viability for southwestern willow flycatcher. No southwestern willow flycatcher breeding is 

known to occur on the Coconino NF; however, there have been migrants and floaters observed. 

Therefore, any potential effects associated with implementation of the LRMP are expected to be 

to these migrants/floaters and not to breeding birds. 

Table 58 summarizes the viability analysis for the southwestern willow flycatcher. 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 58. Analysis summary for the southwestern willow flycatcher

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

D

Species and 

status 

Habitat Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

(Endangered)

CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

VH Good, slowly 

toward 

H

F Rank = F1* MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

H 

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly

toward 

H 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

316

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

D

Species and 

status 

Habitat Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

VH Fair**, slowly 

toward

VH 

Management effect CWRF, MBDRF, and 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. 

Management effect for 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 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.

** 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. 

All alternatives incorporate the standards and guidelines in the Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) (USDA Forest Service 2004a) (1987 Plan, 

pages 113, 114, 115-1, SA-WSR-G-1). Each congressionally designated wild and scenic river is 

required to have a comprehensive river management plan. The comprehensive river management 

plan establishes the river corridor boundary; includes detailed descriptions of the outstandingly 

remarkable values; and addresses goals and desired conditions, development of lands and 

facilities, user capacities, water quality, instream flow, and monitoring strategy. It may also 

include plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring). 

These plan components are equivalent to and have the same weight as direction in this plan. 

Wildlife is an outstandingly remarkable value (ORV), and the southwestern willow flycatcher is 

listed as an example. Desired conditions call for managing wildlife habitat at optimal levels.

Standards require all activities to protect and enhance ORVs, and recovery actions for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher should be implemented. The original designation for the CRMP 

allows for some water diversion. Specifically, designation shall not prevent water users receiving 

Central Arizona Project water allocations from diverting that water through an exchange 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

317

agreement with downstream water users in accordance with Arizona water law, thus, streamflows 

could be reduced in the future; the forest would have limited control of this effect. 

Disturbance during the breeding season can reduce or eliminate the reproductive success of any 

southwestern willow flycatchers that might nest on NFS land. The discussion on Disturbance in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above compares the different alternatives as they 

relate to disturbance. All alternatives have plan components that reduce disturbance to 

southwestern willow flycatchers and, thus, would promote recruitment and survival should any 

breeding or nesting occur (1987 Plan, pages 64-1,206-13; FW-WFP-S-2).

Upstream diversions, impoundments, and tamarisk invasion all affect riparian communities; the 

forest has little control over upstream water management. For this reason, it will be difficult for 

the forest to fully restore this habitat to reference conditions. Water resource management 

activities, including maintaining perennial water quality, quantity, and timing of flows contribute 

a very important role in overall ecological function and sustainability of these watersheds. Many 

of these activities are regulated outside the boundary of the forest. Although the Coconino NF 

manages what it can in terms of riparian health, cumulatively when combined with management 

activities of other jurisdictions, these actions would not likely be sufficient to fully restore this 

habitat to reference conditions. 

Treatments to control tamarisk, a non-native plant species, can impact southwestern willow 

flycatchers because tamarisk provides dense midstory habitat used by this species. Removal of 

tamarisk can open up the habitat, which can cause heat stress or increase flycatcher susceptibility 

to predators or to cowbirds. All alternatives promote a strategy to address establishment, 

containment, control, and eradication of invasive plants (1987 Plan, page 23, FW-Invas-DC-1, 2) 

and they have forestwide standards and guidelines to incorporate control measures into projects 

(1987 Plan, page 69, FW-Invas-G-1-2). All alternatives point to “Design Features, Best 

Management Practices, Required Protection Measures, and Mitigation Measures” in the “Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests” (USDA Forest Service 2005a) as part of the 

strategy to prioritize and treat invasive plants while protecting native species (1987 Plan, page 69, 

FW-Invas-G-2). See discussion on Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues 

and Topics for additional information on this threat.

All alternatives incorporate Travel Management Rule direction that prohibits motor vehicle use 

beyond the designated system of roads, trails, and areas (including areas where motorized big 

game retrieval is allowed). This should help protect threatened and endangered species habitat, 

including the southwestern willow flycatcher, by keeping impacts to vegetative cover, soil 

compaction and other impacts to known and specific areas. 

There are three livestock grazing allotments on the forest that contain critical habitat: 13-Mile 

Rock has 29 acres, Walker Basin has 8 acres, and Windmill has 1 acre. However, there is no 

authorized access to critical habitat along the Verde River, so there will be no impacts from this 

program on the southwestern willow flycatcher or its critical habitat. 

There are approximately 2,415 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian forest types, which could provide potential habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher in 

the Fossil Springs, Mazatzal, Sycamore, West Clear Creek, and Wet Beaver Wilderness Areas.

Wilderness designation provides extra protections for southwestern willow flycatcher potential 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

318

habitat because motorized use (and associated disturbances) is more restricted, and the potential 

for development of recreation and administrative facilities is reduced. These areas are managed 

for their wilderness character, which includes native species and maintenance of natural process. 

Recreation use is managed to protect wilderness character. The restrictive management associated 

with designated wilderness is beneficial for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). The BA did not include the Coconino NF. 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

finding for the southwestern willow flycatcher was “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for 

the species and designated critical habitat. The BA found that many programs could implement 

activities that would have negative impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher, but that standards 

and guidelines in the LRMP would eliminate or mitigate most impacts. In an appendix to the 

2012 BO, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat, and concluded that the LRMP is not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify flycatcher critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2012d). 

The 2010 BA for the TMR project determined that the decision would have some beneficial 

effects to flycatchers and their habitat from road closures near nest sites and within critical 

habitat, but that there could also be some slight negative effects from designation of motorized 

camping corridors within habitat (USDA Forest Service 2010d). The determination for both the 

species and its critical habitat was “may affect, not likely to adversely affect.”

The amended BA for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) found that there would be an 

increase in MBGR within southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, but that adverse effects would 

not be expected (USDA Forest Service 2011m). This was based on the timing of MBGR and 

provisions that minimize potential impacts. Therefore, the finding of “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” for the species and its critical habitat did not change from the 2010 TMR BA. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with those findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011e, 2011f). 

In summary, taking into account the TMR project and its resulting LRMP amendment, the 

findings from the 2011 BA of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the southwestern willow 

flycatcher and its designated critical habitat would remain appropriate for this current analysis. 

Viability

Table 58 shows that Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and have 

a slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, 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. 

MBDRF would remain in good condition. Static trends would be associated with the Oak Creek 

and West Clear Creek 5th code HUCs. The trend would be static or moving slowly toward 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

319

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. 

MWRF 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. 

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. 

The likelihood that SWFL would be limited by the quality of its habitat on the forest is high to 

very high and varies by habitat as shown in table 58. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the southwestern willow flycatcher’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each 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), and springs (high) 

(table 9). 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 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, 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 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 nonfunctional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

The management effect 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. 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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

320

Plan components are discussed further in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section by ERU or riparian 

forest type. Many of the plan components and program areas that apply to southwestern willow 

flycatcher also apply to Chiricahua leopard frog, see Watersheds and Water, Stream Ecosystems, 

Invasive Animals and Disease, Riparian Forest Types, Livestock Grazing, Connectivity, Fire 

Management, Recreation, and Management Area Direction in that section. Additional guidance 

and effects for southwestern willow flycatcher are analyzed below. 

Outside of the Central Arizona Project water allocations, plan components in this alternative 

would provide sufficient water for southwestern willow flycatchers. A forestwide goal would 

maintain high quality sustained water yield for forest users and others as well and protect 

wetlands and floodplains (1987 Plan, page 24). Guidelines promote adequate instream flows and 

adequate instream flow water rights to maintain riparian and aquatic communities (1987 Plan, 

page 206-116); and taking action to legally protect forest use of needed waters (1987 Plan, page 

74). 

Alternative A addresses cowbird parasitism through plan components that would implement 

cowbird control programs based on Fish and Wildlife Service consultation requirements and sitespecific determination of need (1987 Plan, page 206-14) and adaptively manage southwestern 

willow flycatchers and their habitat and cowbirds based on new information and work with other 

agencies (1987 Plan, page 206-10). 

Alternative B (modified)

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for the southwestern willow flycatcher was 

“may affect, likely to adversely affect” for both the species and its critical habitat, due to the 

potential for effects from some programs and activities. In its draft Biological and Conference 

Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b), the Fish and 

Wildlife Service determined that implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Southwestern willow flycatcher, and would not be likely 

to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. No incidental take was assigned. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service provided two discretionary conservation recommendations intended to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, or develop information. 

Table 58 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

321

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. 

As shown in table 58, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for MSO

is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by combining the 

southwestern willow flycatcher’s F Rank of F1 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 considering wetland 

functional condition), and springs (high) (table 9). 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 southwestern willow flycatcher. 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. 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. Desired 

conditions manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function (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). 

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 to 4; FW-Rip-Spr-G-1 to 4). For 

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) (FW-ConstWat-G-1, 2; 

FW-RdsFac-G-2, 5, 7, 9 and Connectivity under Wildlife and Plants Topics and Issues). 

Several forestwide desired conditions for all ecosystems are generally consistent with 

maintenance and improvement of southwestern willow flycatcher populations and habitat. They 

envision ecosystems that provide habitat for native species, and are resilient to natural and 

uncharacteristic disturbances (FW-Eco-DC-1, 2, 3). Desirable non-natives may be present and 

should be in balance with properly functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-4). Non-native 

vegetation is a threat to southwestern willow flycatcher s, and their critical habitat, particularly 

PCEs for riparian vegetation and dynamic riverine processes. This desired condition is moderated 

by the vision that any non-natives must be in balance with properly functioning ecosystems, and 

that the key non-native species that threaten southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (e.g., 

tamarisk, giant reed) are not considered desirable. Therefore, adverse effects to flycatchers or 

critical habitat PCEs are unlikely from implementation of this guidance at the project level.

Desired conditions and guidelines in the watersheds and water section would protect 

southwestern willow flycatcher and their PCEs. Desired conditions for the watersheds and water 

program are generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of southwestern willow 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

322

flycatcher populations and habitat. They generally envision properly functioning conditions. The 

goal is to have vegetation and soil conditions that support clean water, base flows, riparian 

communities, and long-term soil productivity, which would have a positive impact on habitat for 

southwestern willow flycatcher s (FW-Water-DC-3). Best management practices and Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans should be applied to maintain or improve water quality 

(FW-Water-G-4 and 5). Watershed restoration and maintenance should focus on priority 6th code 

watersheds (FW-Water-G-2). Some 6th code watersheds that contain currently occupied and 

potential habitat are in impaired condition (USDA Forest Service 2016j) and could be prioritized 

for treatments during the life of the proposed plan. Vegetative ground cover should be maintained 

so that watersheds can recover quickly from disturbances (FW-Water-G-1). Two other guidelines 

address acquiring instream flow water rights and ensuring excess water flows back into natural 

habitats (FW-Water-G-3, 6). Potential future watershed activities and projects are varied, and 

could include vegetation thinning, prescribed burning, channel stabilization, and other activities 

that could have impacts on habitats adjacent to or within southwestern willow flycatcher habitat.

Although short-term negative impacts that disturb soil or ground vegetation could occur with 

project implementation, the goal to improve watersheds is likely to result in positive results in the 

long term, by supporting maintenance and improvement of riparian habitat. If projects occur 

within or adjacent to critical habitat, short-term adverse effects could occur through removal of 

vegetation, affecting PCEs for dense riparian vegetation and prey populations it supports, but 

these effects are expected to be minor in the short term, and should result in long-term net 

improvement in riparian habitat.

Desired conditions for All Riparian Areas are consistent with maintenance and improvement of 

southwestern willow flycatcher populations and habitat. They generally describe goals to have 

naturally functioning ecosystems, instream flows that provide for channel and floodplain 

maintenance, and habitat connectivity. Projects implemented in the future to be consistent with 

desired conditions will be guided by several guidelines. Two guidelines would have positive 

effects, as one calls for maintaining habitat and corridors for species (FW-Rip-All-G-2), and to 

identify aquatic management zones around all riparian habitats to protect water quality and to 

avoid adverse effects to connected resources (FW-Rip-All-G-3). An objective would restore the 

function of 200 to 500 acres of nonfunctioning and functioning-at-risk riparian areas during each 

10-year period over the life of the plan, with emphasis on priority 6th code watersheds, so that 

they are in or moving toward proper functioning condition (FW-Rip-All-O-1). The mixture of 

adverse and beneficial effects described above applies to critical habitat as well. Impacts to 

riparian habitat can reduce the density of vegetation and affect insect prey populations that use 

riparian vegetation. 

Altered hydrologic and stream processes (diversions, channelization and bank stabilization) are a 

key threat to southwestern willow flycatchers and their critical habitat, so guidance in this section 

is particularly important for protection and enhancement of southwestern willow flycatcher

habitat. While there are no major dams on the portion of the Verde River and southwestern 

willow flycatcher critical habitat on the forest, there are many water diversions and modifications 

in the Verde Valley. The desired conditions for all Stream Ecosystems are generally consistent 

with maintenance and improvement of southwestern willow flycatcher populations and habitat. 

They envision streamcourses with natural sinuosity, where flooding is a natural disturbance where 

energy is dissipated appropriately. There are two guidelines to apply during project development 

and implementation. The first (FW-Rip-Strm-G-1) emphasizes streambank stability, native 

vegetation, and riparian and soil function. This would benefit SWFL habitat and critical habitat 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

323

PCEs for dense riparian vegetation (PCE 1a-d) and insect prey (PCE 2). The other guideline (FWRip-Strm-G-2) calls for establishment of aquatic management zones adjacent to non-riparian, 

intermittent streamcourses, which wouldn’t have a direct influence on southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat. 

The desired conditions for riparian forest types generally provide a vision for riparian forests that 

is consistent with maintenance and improvement of southwestern willow flycatcher populations 

and habitat. In general, goals are to have proper functioning conditions, with protective litter and 

plant cover, root masses and herbaceous vegetation to stabilize and protect banks, and snags (FWRip-RipType-DC-1 to 5). These goals support suitable forest structure for breeding southwestern 

willow flycatcher s. 

A riparian forest type objective calls for restoring function to 200 to 500 acres of nonfunctioning 

and functioning-at-risk riparian areas during each 10-year period of the plan with emphasis on 

priority 6th code watersheds (FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). This objective does not specify which 

riparian forest types will be treated. And because the plan is not site-specific, it is unknown how 

many acres of southwestern willow flycatcher habitat may be restored. This could be beneficial if 

it occurs in southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Two guidelines address water diversions and 

groundwater pumping, which have been identified as key threats to the southwestern willow 

flycatcher and its critical habitat. One guideline states that these activities, if they occur, should 

not lower the water table (FW-Rip-RipType-G-1). The other guideline calls for recreation 

activities, permitted uses, and management activities to occur at levels that maintain or allow 

improvement of soil function, riparian vegetation, and water quality at the stream reach scale

(FW-Rip-Rip-Type-G-3). Activities to restore riparian could include weed removal, fencing to 

exclude ungulate browsing or off-road driving, road improvements or obliterations, and other 

actions that could have impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat. Impacts 

from the implementation of these restoration activities may have short-term effects to 

southwestern willow flycatcher s (such as disturbance during the breeding season or ground and 

vegetation disturbance). However, in the long term, these activities would achieve the goal of 

restoring functional condition within riparian forest types. Several wildlife program desired 

conditions are particularly relevant and describe a positive vision for the southwestern willow 

flycatcher and its habitat. One desired condition states goals for properly functioning ecosystems 

that support sustainable populations of native animals (FW-WFP-DC-1). Another desired 

condition envisions habitat conditions on the forest that contribute to the survival and recovery of 

listed species (FW-WFP-DC-2). Additional desired conditions call for terrestrial and riparian 

habitats to provide the necessary physical and biological habitat components to support life cycle 

needs of native species and stream ecosystem conditions that support habitat for self-sustaining 

populations of native species.FW-WFP-DC-3, 4). Another desired condition promotes forest

attributes of mature forests including large trees, snags, and large logs. These attributes would 

provide habitat structure and insect prey for southwestern willow flycatcher s within riparian 

forests (FW-WFP-DC-7), including both PCEs. 

Two objectives would maintain or improve southwestern willow flycatcher populations and 

habitat if they occur within southwestern willow flycatcher habitat: 

• FW-WFP-O-1 states that at least 20 activities that contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed species will be implemented during each 10-year period of the plan. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

324

• FW-WFP-O-4 calls for restoring or enhancing at least 70 miles of stream habitat during 

each 10-year period of the plan. 

A standard in the section on wildlife, fish, and plants is required to be implemented for projects 

and activities. It prioritizes direction for federally listed and candidate species over other species

(FW-WFP-S-1). This standard has limited benefit, as it only prioritizes federally listed species 

over non-listed species, but does not prioritize threatened and endangered species management 

over other programs or activities. 

Several guidelines incorporate the guidance from recovery plans and other conservation or 

guidance documents (FW-WFP-G-1, 2). Another guideline calls for designing projects and 

managing activities to maintain or improve habitat for native species (FW-WFP-G-3). Projects 

should be designed to minimize any negative impacts from pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals 

(FW-WFP-G-4), which would apply to removal of vegetation in riparian habitat. Lastly, 

designing new roads and trails to maintain species’ access to adjoining habitat and to allow for 

dispersal (FW-WFP-G-13) will be positive for the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Overall, guidance is positive for southwestern willow flycatcher s and their critical habitat.

Wildlife projects implemented under the plan will apply this guidance, and impacts are expected 

to be mostly positive for both the southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat. There is 

some potential for short-term adverse impacts, for example, herbicide application to remove nonnative vegetation could temporarily reduce prey abundance, but the overall net effect is positive. 

The expansion of non-native vegetation or the conversion of native vegetation to non-native 

vegetation is a threat to the southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat. While the

desired conditions accept the presence of invasive species, the stated goals are that native species’ 

sustainability is not affected (FW-Invas-DC-1) and that infestations are detected early (FW-InvasDC-2). Presumably, detecting infestations early would allow for more successful control or 

elimination. Although there are no objectives for invasive species, it is anticipated that activities 

will continue to occur to work toward desired conditions under the proposed plan. Removal of 

non-native vegetation will also contribute to improvement of PCEs, so these impacts are similar 

for critical habitat. The intent of all the guidelines is to prevent, control, contain, or eradicate 

invasive species to protect native species and to improve watershed condition and ecosystem 

function (FW-Invas-G-1, 2, 3). 

The desired conditions related to fire management are generally consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of southwestern willow flycatcher populations and habitat (particularly FW-FireDC-2, 3). The goals of these two desired conditions are that wildland fires burn within the historic 

fire regimes and that ecosystem function is not lost. One guideline calls for designing fire 

management activities to be consistent with moving toward desired conditions for other resources 

(FW-Fire-G-2). However, fire management activities are unlikely to occur within low-elevation 

riparian habitats, since they are not fire-adapted systems. Indirect effects such as short-term 

sedimentation and long-term ground vegetation improvement could occur from prescribed fire in 

adjacent uplands. This includes designated critical habitat along the Verde River. Since direct 

effects of prescribed fire are unlikely in southwestern willow flycatcher habitat or critical habitat, 

and only indirect minor effects would be expected in upland habitat, overall effects are not 

expected to be adverse. 

Recreational use (e.g., hiking, camping) of occupied southwestern willow flycatcher habitat can 

result in visual and aural disturbance to nesting and foraging southwestern willow flycatcher s. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

325

Frequent disturbance, disturbance of high intensity, or disturbance of long duration can disturb 

birds resulting in increased predation of young and eggs, abandonment of nesting areas, flushing 

of adults incubating eggs long enough for the eggs to become unviable, abandonment of eggs or 

young, decreased success during foraging, and premature fledging of young. Developed and 

dispersed recreation can trample or remove riparian vegetation (PCE 1a-d). Several guidelines are 

expected to minimize potential disturbance impacts from recreational use (FW-Rec-All-G-1, 2, 4, 

5). 

A guideline that states dispersed camping along riparian areas should be managed to maintain or 

move toward desired conditions for riparian areas and water should help protect riparian habitat 

that the southwestern willow flycatcher depends on (FW-Rec-Disp-G-5). 

Of the 18 management areas (MA) in alternative B (modified), only one contains critical habitat. 

The 323,457-acre Verde Valley MA contains 474 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical 

habitat. Desired conditions (MA-Verde-DC-1, 3) call for managing watersheds to reduce the risk 

of uncharacteristic flooding and sedimentation into perennial streams and other areas and 

retaining the natural character of areas used for dispersed recreation to the extent possible, while 

maintaining or moving toward other desired conditions. These should benefit southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat. A guideline (MA-VerdeV-G-1) is intended to design and implement 

projects to maintain or improve watershed and riparian function and/or prevent the introduction 

or spread of disease, invasive, or undesirable species. This would also be beneficial to 

southwestern willow flycatcher habitat as well.

The only special area that contains southwestern willow flycatcher habitat is the Verde Valley 

Botanical Area, which contains approximately 16 acres of critical habitat. Goals for Botanical 

Areas are to protect and maintain their unique characteristics (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5), and to 

provide opportunities for study, monitoring, and interpretation (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-6). A 

guideline limits human use and access to protect characteristics of the area (SA-RNA-BotGeo-G1). Guidelines for fire and allotment management also protect resources and unique 

characteristics of the area (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). Mechanized travel in botanical and 

geological areas is not suitable except on designated trails. This direction is consistent with 

protection and maintenance of the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat, including 

critical habitat. 

Alternative B (modified) recommends three new wildernesses, but none of these wildernesses 

include designated or proposed critical habitat, therefore, there is no effect.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the same effects as alternative B (modified) except it recommends a total of 13 

wilderness areas, has some management areas would be managed for reduced human disturbance, 

and has some areas that would not be suitable for recreational shooting. None of these areas 

include critical habitat, therefore, there is no effect.

In addition, this alternative restricts grazing in research natural areas, which reduces disturbance 

in 18 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and 117 acres of Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

326

Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to alternative B (modified) in most aspects. However, alternative D 

recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing those areas as 

recommended wilderness would not occur. The 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. 

This alternative also changes the scenic integrity objectives along existing energy corridors to 

allow for expansion and/or increased access. Since the corridors already exist and disturbance to 

habitat has already occurred, it is unlikely to have impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Findings

The determination of effect for all alternatives is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat. While these alternatives generally strive to 

improve degraded ERUs, some programs and activities could have adverse effects to the 

southwestern willow flycatcher as projects are implemented to reach those goals. Although there 

are currently no breeding southwestern willow flycatchers on the forest, a number of individual 

detections have been made over the years, so it is possible that breeding could occur over the life 

of the LRMP. The potential exists for some adverse effects to occur to primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat within the same plan sections as disclosed for the species. Effects are 

often short-term, and/or minimized through standards and guidelines, but the potential for adverse 

effects cannot always be ruled out. 

Implementation of plan components related to vegetation treatments, recreation management, 

watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, or land acquisition in any of 

the alternatives may have short-term effects on aquatic and riparian habitat or species 

populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of 

southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat on the Coconino NF. 

The action alternatives contribute more to the viability of southwestern willow flycatcher than 

alternative A because of updated language on riparian forest types, springs, ecosystem restoration 

and better address movement corridors and connectivity between habitats. 

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (YBCU)

The yellow-billed cuckoo was proposed for listing as a threatened distinct population segment in 

2013 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). The Fish and Wildlife Service published the final 

rule to list the distinct population segment as threatened in 2014 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2014). 

Affected Environment 

The forest has undertaken actions to improve the status of the yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat

prior to and since listing. For projects within the range of the cuckoo, the forest considers needs 

for the species in project design, analyzes effects of the project within the NEPA process, and 

consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service as needed. For noise-disturbing activities, the Forest 

Service requires activities occur outside of breeding season (May 15 through September 30) in 

areas with cuckoos or that are unsurveyed. The forest conducts surveys for various projects that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

327

could impact cuckoos or their habitat and conducts monitoring of some sites. The forest also

maintains riparian exclosures that exclude livestock or motorized vehicles in occupied and critical 

habitat. 

Distribution 

Historically, the western yellow-billed cuckoo was locally common in a number of western states, 

but over the last 90 years, its breeding range has contracted significantly. In Arizona, the cuckoo 

was widespread and locally common. Although numbers have substantially declined, Arizona still 

contains the largest remaining population in the West (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). 

On the forest, the Verde River is one of 12 locations in the state that supports populations of 

greater than 10 pairs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). In 2004 and 2005, surveys were 

conducted in the Verde watershed. Of the 37 sites surveyed, cuckoos were detected at 22 sites, 

which included detections at 12 of 16 historic sites, and 10 of 21 random sites (Holmes et al. 

2008). In addition to the Verde River mainstem, cuckoos have been detected along Oak Creek, 

West Clear Creek, and Beaver Creek and tributaries (Dry Beaver Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, Red 

Tank Draw, and Walker Creek).

Habitat

Nesting habitat for the cuckoo consists of low- to moderate-elevation riparian habitat of 50 acres 

or more in size (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). On the forest, nesting sites are within 

deciduous riparian habitat at least 325 feet in width (Holmes et al. 2008). Cuckoos nesting in the 

Verde Watershed appear to favor native cottonwood and willow habitat with adjacent stands of 

mesquite at least 5 hectares (12 acres) in size (Holmes et al. 2008). ERUs that contain current or 

potential breeding sites on the Coconino NF include Cottonwood Willow (approximately 

1,324 acres) and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests (approximately 5,926 acres). 

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

Proposed Critical Habitat: The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 80 units, or blocks of 

riparian habitat, as critical habitat for the western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed 

cuckoo in August 2014 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). Four units are partly or wholly 

within the forest and contain lands with a variety of ownerships (table 59). Acres of proposed 

critical habitat by ERU are shown in table 60. There are approximately 2,086 acres of proposed 

critical habitat on lands managed by the forest. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

328

Table 59. Yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical habitat units that include lands within the Coconino 

NF. Federal acres include lands on other forests.

Unit 

No. Name of Unit

Size of 

Unit 

(Acres)

Federal

Acres 

(Percent) 

Coconino 

NF Acres State Tribal1 Private 

17 AZ-9 Upper Verde River 4,531 2,217 

(49)

384 776 (17) 0 1,538 (34)

18 AZ-10 Oak Creek 1,323 433 (33) 433 160 (12) 0 730 (55)

19 AZ-11 Beaver Creek and 

tributaries

2,082 1,491 

(72)

968 0 (0) 3 (0.1) 588 (28)

20 AZ-12 Lower Verde River 

and West Clear Creek

2,053 447

(22)

301 31 (2) 43 (2) 1,532 (75)

Totals: 9,989 4,618 2,086 967 46 4,388

1

According to the proposed rule, these acre are being considered for exclusion from critical habitat.

Table 60. Acres of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat by ERU within lands managed by the 

Coconino NF 

ERU Critical Habitat (Acres)

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 393

Desert Communities 456

Interior Chaparral 8 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 1,038

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub 59

Semi-Desert Grassland 134

Total: 2,088

Primary constituent elements that are essential to the cuckoo are riparian woodlands, adequate 

prey base, and dynamic riverine processes. Each element is described in more detail in the final 

rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014 and the Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 

2017c) 

Risk Factors

Threats to the cuckoo were described in the final listing rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2014). The primary factors threatening the distinct population segment are the loss and 

degradation of habitat due to altered hydrologic and stream processes, livestock overgrazing, 

encroachment from agriculture, and conversion of native habitat to predominantly non-native 

vegetation. The proposed rule identified threats to proposed critical habitat. Threats for all four 

units include: altered hydrologic processes from dams, diversions, and groundwater withdrawals, 

floodplain encroachments such as road/bridge construction, development, and bank stabilization, 

livestock overgrazing, wood cutting, and recreation. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 61 summarizes the viability analysis for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

329

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 61. Analysis summary for the western yellow-billed cuckoo

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, D

Species and 

status 

Habitat Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Habitat Trend 

relative to 

desired 

conditions

Likelihood 

species is 

limited

Western yellowbilled cuckoo 

(Threatened)

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 

Management effect All habitats = 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.

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 incorporate the standards and guidelines in the Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) (USDA Forest Service 2004a) (1987 Plan, 

pages 113, 114, 115-1, SA-WSR-G-1). Each congressionally designated wild and scenic river is 

required to have a comprehensive river management plan. The comprehensive river management 

plan establishes the river corridor boundary; includes detailed descriptions of the outstandingly 

remarkable values; and addresses goals and desired conditions, development of lands and 

facilities, user capacities, water quality, instream flow, and monitoring strategy. It may also 

include plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring). 

These plan components are equivalent to and have the same weight as direction in the forest plan. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

330

Wildlife is an outstandingly remarkable value (ORV). Desired conditions call for managing 

wildlife habitat at optimal levels. Standards require all activities to protect and enhance ORVs, 

and recovery actions for listed species should be implemented. The original designation for the 

CRMP allows for some water diversion. Specifically, designation shall not prevent water users 

receiving Central Arizona Project water allocations from diverting that water through an 

exchange agreement with downstream water users in accordance with Arizona water law, thus, 

streamflows could be reduced in the future; the forest would have limited control of this effect. 

Upstream and off-Forest water diversions, impoundments, and tamarisk invasion affect riparian 

communities on the forest; however, the forest has little control over upstream water or invasive 

species management. For this reason, it will be difficult for the forest to fully restore cuckoo 

habitat to reference conditions. Water resource management activities, including maintaining 

perennial water quality, quantity, and timing of flows contribute a very important role in overall 

ecological function and sustainability of these watersheds. Many of these activities are regulated 

outside the boundary of the forest. Although the Coconino NF manages what it can in terms of 

riparian health, cumulatively when combined with management activities of other jurisdictions, 

these actions would not likely be sufficient to fully restore this habitat to reference conditions. 

The forest will continue to provide viability for yellow-billed cuckoo within its management 

capabilities. 

All alternatives promote a strategy to address establishment, containment, control, and eradication 

of invasive plants (1987 Plan, page 23, FW-Invas-DC-1, 2) and they have forestwide standards 

and guidelines to incorporate control measures into projects (1987 Plan, page 69, FW-Invas-G-1, 

2). All alternatives point to “Design Features, Best Management Practices, Required Protection 

Measures, and Mitigation Measures” in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated 

Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National 

Forests” (USDA Forest Service 2005a) as part of the strategy to prioritize and treat invasive 

plants while protecting native species (1987 Plan, page 69, FW-Invas-G-2). See discussion on 

Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above for 

additional information on this threat.

Disturbance during the breeding season can reduce or eliminate the reproductive success of any 

western yellow-billed cuckoo that might nest on NFS land. The discussion on Disturbance in the 

Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section above compares the different alternatives as they 

relate to disturbance. All alternatives have plan components that would reduce disturbance to 

western yellow-billed cuckoo and, thus, would promote recruitment and survival should any 

breeding or nesting occur (1987 Plan, pages 64-1, FW-WFP-S-2).

All alternatives incorporate Travel Management Rule direction that prohibits motor vehicle use 

beyond the designated system of roads, trails, and areas (including areas where motorized big 

game retrieval is allowed). This should help protect threatened and endangered species habitat, 

including the yellow-billed cuckoo, by keeping impacts to vegetative cover, soil compaction and 

other impacts to known and specific areas.

There are three livestock grazing allotments on the forest that contain critical habitat: 13-Mile 

Rock has 29 acres, Walker Basin has 8 acres, and Windmill has 1 acre. However, there is no 

authorized access to critical habitat along the Verde River, so there will be no impacts from this 

program on the yellow-billed cuckoo or its critical habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

331

There are approximately 2,415 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous and Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian forest types, which could provide potential habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo in the Fossil 

Springs, Mazatzal, Sycamore, West Clear Creek, and Wet Beaver Wilderness Areas. Wilderness 

designation provides extra protections for yellow-billed cuckoo potential habitat because 

motorized use (and associated disturbances) is more restricted, and the potential for development 

of recreation and administrative facilities is reduced. These areas are managed for their 

wilderness character, which includes native species and maintenance of natural process. 

Recreation use is managed to protect wilderness character. The restrictive management associated 

with designated wilderness is beneficial for yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). At that time, the yellow-billed cuckoo was a Federal candidate 

species. The BA determined that the Coconino LRMP was “Not Likely to Jeopardize” the 

continued existence of the cuckoo. The BA also made a determination of “May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect” the cuckoo, in the event the species was listed in the future. Adverse effects 

were expected from diversions and water authorizations, livestock grazing, invasive riparian 

plants, and recreation. The 2005 BO found that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur from 

several programs, including engineering, lands and minerals, rangeland, management, recreation, 

and watershed management. It concluded that the continued implementation of the Coconino 

LRMP was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the yellow-billed cuckoo (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat. The yellow-billed cuckoo was not 

included in that BA for any of the forests in the region.

The 2010 BA for the TMR project addressed the yellow-billed cuckoo as a Candidate species 

(USDA Forest Service 2010d). Given a mixture of positive and slight negative effects, the finding 

was “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the cuckoo and its habitat. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service concurred with the finding on December 22, 2010 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011e). 

The amended BA for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) found that there would be an 

increase in MBGR within cuckoo habitat, but that adverse effects would not be expected (USDA 

Forest Service 2011m). This was based on the timing of MBGR and provisions that minimize 

potential impacts. Therefore, the finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the 

species and its critical habitat did not change from the 2010 TMR BA. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service concurred with those findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011f). 

In summary, taking into account the TMR project and its resulting LRMP amendment, the 

findings from the 2004 BA of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect,” the yellow-billed 

cuckoo and its habitat would remain appropriate for this current analysis.

Viability

Table 61 summarizes the viability analysis for yellow-billed cuckoo. Cottonwood Willow 

Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and have a slow trend toward desired conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

332

In Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, some portions of the Verde River, Dry Beaver Creek, 

and Spring Creek, would be static due to high recreation use or private land, such as the area 

around Childs, Spring Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek. 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest would remain in good condition. 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. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the yellow-billed cuckoo is 

moderate-high to high depending on the habitat as shown in table 61. These likelihoods were

derived by combining the yellow-billed cuckoo’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: CWRF (high) and MBDRF (moderate) (table 9). 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 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. 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 65-2, 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 does not distinguish between different types of riparian forest 

types. Management guidance for riparian habitat is primarily contained with MA 12. Management 

of wildlife habitat is a key emphasis. The goal in the 1987 Plan is to recover 80 percent of 

riparian habitats by year 2030, with the remaining 20 percent significantly improved; however, 

the rate of implementation has proven to not be realistic, and the amount of forest riparian habitat 

improved is expected to be the same under all alternatives (USDA Forest Service 2011f).

Alternative A lacks desired conditions or guidance for mesquite bosques. The combination of 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest and Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest with 

mesquite bosques create a vegetative community favored by cuckoos and other riparian birds. 

Management of this unique community type could be inconsistent or unfavorable to cuckoos due 

to the lack of plan language. 

Alternative B (modified)

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for the western yellow-billed cuckoo was 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

333

“may affect, likely to adversely affect” for both the species and its proposed critical habitat, due 

to the potential for effects from some programs and activities. In its draft Biological and 

Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b), the 

Fish and Wildlife Service determined that implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP 

would not jeopardize the continued existence of the yellow-billed cuckoo. No incidental take was 

assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided five discretionary conservation 

recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, 

or develop information. 

Viability

Table 61 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.

As shown in table 61, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

yellow-billed cuckoo is moderate-high for Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. These likelihoods were derived by combining the yellowbilled cuckoo’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate) and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest

(moderate) (table 9). 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 Cottonwood 

Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. 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 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-RipRipType-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; 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 

properly functioning ecosystems that have the necessary physical and biological components to 

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

The desired conditions for all ecosystems are generally consistent with maintenance and 

improvement of cuckoo populations and riparian habitat. They envision ecosystems that provide 

habitat for native species, and are resilient to natural and uncharacteristic disturbances (FW-Eco-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

334

DC-1, 2, 3). Desirable non-natives may be present and should be in balance with properly 

functioning ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-4). Non-native vegetation is a threat to cuckoos, and their 

critical habitat, particularly PCEs for riparian vegetation and dynamic riverine processes. This 

potentially contrary desired condition is moderated by the vision that any non-natives must be in 

balance with properly functioning ecosystems, and that the key non-native species that threaten 

cuckoo habitat (e.g., tamarisk, giant reed) are not considered desirable. 

The desired conditions in the section for watersheds and water are generally consistent with 

maintenance and improvement of cuckoo populations and habitat. They generally envision 

properly functioning conditions. In particular for the cuckoo, the goal is to have vegetation and 

soil conditions such that they support clean water, base flows, riparian communities, and longterm soil productivity (FW-Water-DC-3), which would have a positive impact on habitat for 

cuckoos, including all three PCEs. Forest management practices and Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) plans should be applied to maintain or improve water quality (FW-Water-G-4 and 5). 

Watershed restoration and maintenance should focus on priority 6th code watersheds (FW-WaterG-2). Some 6th code watersheds that contain currently occupied and potential habitat are in 

impaired condition (USDA Forest Service 2016j) and could be prioritized for treatments during 

the life of the proposed plan. Vegetative ground cover should be maintained so that watersheds 

can recover quickly from disturbances (FW-Water-G-1). Two other guidelines address acquiring 

instream flow water rights and ensuring excess water flows back into natural habitats (FW-WaterG-3, 6). All of these guidelines will protect cuckoos and all three PCEs. Potential future 

watershed activities and projects are varied, and could include vegetation thinning, prescribed 

burning, channel stabilization, and other activities that could have impacts on habitats adjacent to 

or within cuckoo occupied, potential, or proposed critical habitat. Although short-term negative 

impacts that disturb soil or ground vegetation could occur with project implementation, the goal 

to improve watersheds is likely to result in positive results in the long-term, by supporting 

maintenance and improvement of riparian and mesquite habitat that is important to cuckoos. This 

applies to proposed critical habitat as well, since PCEs for riparian habitat, prey, and riverine 

processes could also be impacted in the short-term, but goals and guidance support long-term 

improvement.

The desired conditions for All Riparian Areas are consistent with maintenance and improvement 

of cuckoo populations and habitat. They generally describe goals to have naturally functioning 

ecosystems, instream flows that provide for channel and floodplain maintenance, and habitat 

connectivity (FW-Rip-All-DC-1 to 5). Two guidelines (FW-Rip-All-G-2 and FW-Rip-All-G-3) 

would have positive effects as they call for maintaining habitat and corridors for species; and to 

identify aquatic management zones around all riparian habitats to protect water quality and to 

avoid adverse effects to connected resources.

Altered hydrologic and stream processes are a key threat to cuckoos and their proposed critical 

habitat, so guidance in this section is particularly important for protection and enhancement of 

cuckoo habitat. While there are no major dams on the portion of the Verde River on the forest, 

there are many water diversions and modifications in the Verde Valley. The desired conditions for 

all Stream Ecosystems are generally consistent with maintenance and improvement of cuckoo 

populations and habitat. They envision streamcourses with natural sinuosity, where flooding is a 

natural disturbance where energy is dissipated appropriately (FW-Rip-Strm-DC-1 to 4). A 

guideline that emphasizes streambank stability, native vegetation, and riparian and soil function

(FW-Rip-Strm-G-1) would further benefit cuckoo habitat during project implementation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

335

Mixed Broadleaf and Cottonwood Willow are the two riparian forest types that support cuckoos 

and their proposed critical habitat. There are approximately 393 acres of Cottonwood Willow, and 

1,038 acres of Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest within critical habitat on Coconino 

NF lands (table 60). The desired conditions generally provide a vision for riparian forests that is 

consistent with maintenance and improvement of cuckoo populations and habitat. In general, 

goals are to have proper functioning conditions, with protective litter and plant cover, root masses 

and herbaceous vegetation to stabilize and protect banks, and snags (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-1 to 

5). Of particular importance to cuckoos, a desired condition provides a vision of a combination of 

lower elevation riparian forest and mesquite bosques that provide a unique vegetation community 

favored by cuckoos and other bird species (FW-Rip-RipType-DC-6). A variety of age classes 

would be present in mesquite bosques, and native grasses and forbs would comprise the 

understory in this community. These goals support suitable forest structure for breeding cuckoos.

A riparian forest type objective calls for restoring function to 200 to 500 acres of riparian habitat 

during each 10-year period of the plan (FW-Rip-RipType-O-1). This objective does not specify 

which riparian forest types will be treated. And because the plan is not site-specific, it is unknown 

how many acres of cuckoo habitat may be restored. This could be beneficial if it occurs in 

yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. There is a total of 11,018 acres of riparian forest on the Coconino 

NF, with approximately 3,382 acres (31 percent) not in PFC (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Therefore, implementation of this objective equates to an expected improvement of 6 to 15 

percent of riparian acres not currently in PFC, which is a fairly small proportion of what’s 

currently not functioning properly. Activities to restore riparian could include weed removal, 

fencing to exclude ungulate browsing or off-road driving, road improvements or obliterations, 

and other actions that could have impacts to the cuckoo and its habitat. Impacts from the 

implementation of these restoration activities may have short-term effects to cuckoos (such as 

disturbance during the breeding season or ground and vegetation disturbance). However, in the 

long term, these activities would achieve the goal of restoring functional condition within riparian 

forest types. 

Water diversions and groundwater pumping have been identified as key threats to the cuckoo and 

its proposed critical habitat. One guideline states that these activities, if they occur, should not 

lower the water table (FW-Rip-RipType-G-1). This would lessen the likelihood that riparian 

forest habitat is adversely affected, but still could occur. Also important to cuckoos, a guideline 

calls for enhancing the connectivity and maintaining the ecological function of the combination 

of mesquite bosques with lower elevation riparian forests to provide habitat for cuckoos and other 

wildlife (FW-Rip-RipType-G-2). Another guideline calls for managing fuelwood cutting or wood 

removal so that impacts to understory species, tree density, tree growth, and channel function is 

avoided (FW-RipType-G-4). Woodcutting has been identified as a threat to proposed critical 

habitat. Since mesquite bosques are an important component of cuckoo habitat, these guidelines

support maintenance and improvement of the cuckoo’s habitat, including PCEs 1 and 3). Another 

guideline calls for recreation activities, permitted uses, and management activities to occur at 

levels that maintain or allow improvement of soil function, riparian vegetation, and water quality 

at the stream reach scale, but excludes fine-scale activities such as intermittent livestock 

crossings, water gaps, and facilities and infrastructure (FW-RipType-G-3). Since livestock use of 

habitat and the construction or use of facilities in riparian could impact habitat, critical habitat 

components (PCEs 1 through 3), and occupied sites, this caveat is not protective for the cuckoo, 

and could cause adverse effects at the project scale.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

336

The desired conditions describe goals for wildlife, fish, and plants, none of which are inconsistent 

with maintenance and improvement of cuckoo populations and habitat. Several are particularly 

relevant and describe a vision very positive for the cuckoo and its habitat. For example, one 

desired condition states goals for properly functioning ecosystems that support sustainable 

populations of native animals (FW-WFP-DC-1). Another desired condition envisions habitat 

conditions on the forest that contribute to the survival and recovery of listed species (FW-WFPDC-2). Additional desired conditions call for terrestrial and riparian habitats to provide the 

necessary physical and biological habitat components to support life cycle needs of native species

and stream ecosystem conditions that support habitat for self-sustaining populations of native 

species (FW-WFP-DC-3, 4). Another desired condition promotes forest attributes of mature 

forests, including large trees, snags, and large logs. These attributes would provide habitat 

structure and insect prey for cuckoos within riparian forests (FW-WFP-DC-7), and critical 

habitat. 

Two plan objectives relate to maintaining or improving cuckoo populations and habitat. FWWFP-O-1 states that at least 20 activities that contribute to the recovery of federally listed species 

will be implemented during each 10-year period of the plan. Given that there are currently 22 

listed or proposed species to work toward recovery for on the forest, there may be some, but not 

likely to be significant, progress for the cuckoo. This could be beneficial if it occurs in cuckoo 

habitat. FW-WFP-O-4 calls for restoring or enhancing at least 70 miles of stream habitat during 

each 10-year period of the plan. If stream restoration activities, such as streambank protection or 

removal of invasive species occur within cuckoo habitat, this could benefit the species. A 

standard requires the application of timing restrictions where projects or activities could 

negatively affect listed species, providing protection from disturbance during implementation

(FW-WFP-S-2). This standard could be applied as needed to protect cuckoos from disturbance 

during the breeding season. 

A guideline calls for designing projects and managing activities to maintain or improve habitat for 

native species (FW-WFP-G-3). Projects should be designed to minimize any negative impacts 

from pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals (FW-WFP-G-4), which would apply to removal of 

invasive non-native vegetation in riparian habitat. Another guideline calls for using fire 

suppression techniques that would minimize habitat and disturbance impacts (FW-WFP-G-9). 

Chytrid fungus does not impact the cuckoo directly, but can affect tree frogs, an important food 

item and a PCE. Preventing the introduction and spread of disease (FW-WFP-G-12) will help 

protect this food source. Lastly, designing new roads and trails to maintain species’ access to 

adjoining habitat and to allow for dispersal (FW-WFP-G-13) would be positive for the cuckoo.

Overall, guidance is positive for cuckoos and their proposed critical habitat. Wildlife projects 

implemented under the plan will apply this guidance, and impacts are expected to be mostly 

positive for both the cuckoo and its proposed critical habitat. There is some potential for shortterm negative impacts, for example, herbicide application to remove non-native vegetation could 

temporarily reduce prey abundance (PCE 2). 

The expansion of non-native vegetation or the conversion of native vegetation to non-native 

vegetation is a threat to the cuckoo and its critical habitat. While the desired conditions accept the 

presence of invasive species, the stated goals are that native species’ sustainability is not affected 

(FW-Invas-DC-1) and that infestations are detected early (FW-Invas-DC-2). Presumably, 

detecting infestations early would allow for more successful control or elimination. Although 

there are no objectives for invasive species, it is anticipated that activities would continue to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

337

occur to work toward desired conditions under the proposed plan. Removal of non-native 

vegetation would also contribute to improvement in all three PCEs, so these impacts are similar 

for proposed critical habitat. The intent of the guidelines is to prevent, control, contain, or 

eradicate invasive species to protect native species and to improve watershed condition and 

ecosystem function (FW-Invas-G-1, 2, 3). 

Overgrazing by livestock is identified as one of the primary factors threatening the cuckoo and its 

proposed critical habitat. On the forest, there are approximately 459 acres of proposed critical 

habitat within several grazing allotments. Livestock grazing is largely excluded from riparian 

habitats on the forest. For example, except for two water gaps infrequently used, there is no 

authorized livestock grazing on the Verde River. The three desired conditions are generally 

consistent with maintenance and improvement of cuckoo populations and habitats. A desired 

condition does allows for lower levels of vegetation and higher levels of soil compaction around 

livestock concentration areas such as earthen stock ponds, springs, and other features (FW-GrazDC-2). If such concentration areas occur in or near occupied sites, potential habitat, or critical 

habitat, there could be negative impacts, but livestock grazing as a whole is fairly limited within 

Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Riparian on the forest. One guideline calls for 

managing livestock grazing to meet or move toward desired conditions for other resources, 

including species (FW-Graz-G-2), so this would be positive for the cuckoo and its habitat. The 

other guidelines are generally consistent with habitat and populations of the cuckoo. However, 

one guideline is not. It calls for maintaining riparian habitat, banks, and soils where livestock 

have access, except for situations such as intermittent livestock crossing through riparian and use 

of water gaps (FW-Graz-G-7). If these crossing or water gap areas overlap with occupied, 

potential, or critical habitat, there could be negative impacts. However, livestock grazing is 

largely excluded from riparian areas on the forest, so the extent of impacts from grazing and 

associated activities is expected to be fairly low.

There are currently four developed recreation sites (Beaver Creek, Chavez Crossing, Crescent 

Moon Ranch, and V-V Ranch) within proposed critical habitat for the cuckoo. Several of the 

desired conditions for developed recreation sites include language to protect resources, which 

would include the cuckoo and its habitat. The vision is that developed sites do not cause 

ecological damage (FW-Rec-Dev-DC-1), are located strategically to protect resources (FW-RecDev-DC-7), and those adjacent to water protect water quality, and prevent resource damage (FWRec-Dev-DC-8). The goals include provisions that recreation demand is in balance with resource 

protection (FW-Rec-G-3) and that invasive weeds and/or aquatic organisms are not established or 

transported (FW-Red-Dev-DC-9). One guideline (FW-Rec-Dev-G-2) relates to cuckoo habitat, 

calling for the use of native plants for sites, and removal or treatment of invasive species before 

they become widespread. This supports minimizing the threat of non-native vegetation 

encroaching into cuckoo habitat. 

This alternative includes a standard that prohibits motor vehicle use beyond the designated 

system of roads, trails, and areas (including areas where motorized big game retrieval is allowed) 

(FW-Rec-Disp-S-1). This should help protect threatened and endangered species habitat, 

including the cuckoo, by keeping impacts to vegetative cover, soil compaction and other impacts 

to known and specific areas. A guideline states that dispersed camping along riparian areas should 

be managed to maintain or move toward desired conditions for riparian areas and water (FW-RecDisp-G-5). This will help protect riparian habitat that the cuckoo depends on. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

338

There are approximately 3.2 miles of trails within proposed critical habitat. There are no 

developed trailheads within proposed critical habitat. A Trails and Trailheads desired condition 

expresses the goal that damage to resources from the use of trails and trailheads is minimal, and 

can be mitigated or restored FW-Rec-Trails-DC-4. A guideline FW-Rec-Trails-G-3 calls for 

management of unplanned, user-created trails, so that resources damaged by these trails can be 

rehabilitated (FW-Rec-Trails-G-3). If within cuckoo habitat, this would help restore habitat. 

Collectively, activities related to developed and dispersed recreation, and recreational use of trails 

and trailheads could have impacts to the cuckoo through disturbance to breeding birds, or loss of 

habitat due to new construction of trails or trailheads. Guidance primarily contained within 

desired conditions and guidelines does include consideration of other resources in the design and 

management of recreation activities and trails, which would help minimize potential impacts.

Of the 18 management areas in the proposed plan, several contain proposed critical habitat. 

Relative to the total size of the management areas, cuckoo habitat represents a very minor portion 

(table 62). 

Table 62. Yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical habitat within management areas

Management Area Management Area Acres Yellow-billed Cuckoo Proposed 

Critical Habitat Acres (% MA)

House Mountain Lowlands 40,901 157 (<1)

Red Rock 105,599 55 (<1)

Sedona Neighborwoods 15,125 196 (1)

Verde Valley 323,457 1,680 (1)

Total: 2,088

The management direction for these management areas focuses on recreation use, scenery 

resources, and land exchanges. In general, there is little wildlife direction contained within the 

plan components. As projects are proposed to meet desired conditions for recreation and scenery 

in these MAs, the primary guidance for protection and guidance of listed species and their habitat 

will come from other relevant sections of the plan, particularly from forestwide direction for 

ERUs, recreation, and Wildlife, Fish, and Plants. Desired conditions in the Verde Valley MA

(MA-Verde-DC-1, 3) call for managing watersheds to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic flooding 

and sedimentation into perennial streams and other areas and retaining the natural character of 

areas used for dispersed recreation to the extent possible, while maintaining or moving toward 

other desired conditions. A guideline (MA-VerdeV-G-1) is intended to design and implement 

projects to maintain or improve watershed and riparian function and/or prevent the introduction 

or spread of disease, invasive, or undesirable species. These should be beneficial to southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat as well.

Recommended wilderness in alternative C would have localized impacts on riparian forest types, 

but would not affect the sustainability at the forest level. There would be a total of 895 acres of 

Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian forest types in recommended 

wilderness. This is about 17 percent of the Cottonwood Willow on the forest and 11 percent of the 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous. Some plan components for recommended wilderness would be 

beneficial for yellow-billed cuckoo 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

339

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). 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.

The only special area that contains cuckoo habitat is the Verde Valley Botanical Area, which 

contains approximately 18 acres of proposed critical habitat. Goals for Botanical Areas are to 

protect and maintain their unique characteristics (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5), and to provide 

opportunities for study, monitoring, and interpretation (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-6). A guideline 

limits human use and access to protect characteristics of the area (SA-RNA-BotGeo-G-1). 

Guidelines for fire and allotment management also protect resources and unique characteristics of 

the area (SA-RNABotGeo-G-3, 4). These are consistent with protection and maintenance of 

cuckoos and their habitat, including proposed critical habitat. The remainder of the guidance is 

specific to areas that do not contain cuckoo habitat. Mechanized travel in botanical and geological 

areas is not suitable except on designated trails. This direction is consistent with protection and 

maintenance of the yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat, including critical habitat. 

Alternative C

Plan direction for yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat is largely the same as alternative B 

(modified). Alternative C would recommend 13 additional wilderness areas. Recommended 

wilderness in alternative C would have localized impacts on riparian forest types, but would not 

affect the sustainability at the forest level. The Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf 

Riparian forest types comprise only a small percentage (874 acres or 1 percent) of the total 

recommended wilderness. This is about 17 percent of the Cottonwood Willow on the forest and 

11 percent of the Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous. Some plan components for recommended 

wilderness would be beneficial for yellow-billed cuckoo 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). 

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 also includes a guideline that would exclude livestock grazing from research 

natural areas under most circumstances (Appendix F, SA-RNABotGeo-G-4). Compared to 

alternative B (modified), restricting grazing would have only a small positive impact on the 

yellow-billed cuckoo by improving riparian habitats because little to no grazing occurs in these 

areas. 

Alternative C would include a determination that mechanized recreation is not suitable in 

botanical and geological areas, which would also limit disturbance to species like the yellowbilled cuckoo. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

340

Alternative D

The effects to yellow-billed cuckoo from alternative D are largely the same, except, unlike 

alternative B (modified), alternative D does not propose any new 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

Effects are similar to effects for the southwestern willow flycatcher. The action alternatives 

include updated language on ecosystem restoration, riparian habitat, mesquite bosques, and better 

address movement corridors and connectivity between habitats. This would contribute more to 

the viability of the species compared to alternative A. 

Based on threats identified for the species and for proposed critical habitat, the main impacts that 

could occur from future projects that implement the plan are those that impact Cottonwood 

Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests, their associated streams, and adjacent 

mesquite bosques. As disclosed in the analysis, most programs and specific management areas 

have guidance that is expected to be positive for the cuckoo and its proposed critical habitat. But 

some programs and expected activities (primarily minerals and recreation) could have short-term 

adverse effects as projects are implemented to reach desired conditions in the LRMP. Overall, 

coordination and implementation of all of the guidance in the plan is expected to minimize 

potential impacts, and benefit the cuckoo in the long run. And, despite containing occupied and 

proposed critical habitat, some management areas emphasize other programs, such as recreation 

and scenery. Application of other protective guidance in the plan would apply, but the lack of 

emphasis could impact the cuckoo. Additionally, the cuckoo does not yet have a recovery plan to 

guide management actions. 

Species

While the plan generally strives to move degraded ERUs toward historical reference conditions, 

management direction for some programs and associated activities could have adverse effects to 

the cuckoo in achieving those goals. Effects are often short-term, and/or minimized through 

standards and guidelines, but the potential for adverse effects cannot always be ruled out. Based 

on the analysis, implementation of the LRMP over the next 10 to 15 years is likely to have a 

mixture of adverse and beneficial effects on the species, resulting in a finding of “May Affect, 

Likely to Adversely Affect” the yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat. 

Proposed Critical Habitat 

The potential exists for some adverse effects to occur to proposed primary constituent elements of 

critical habitat within the same program/plan sections as disclosed for the species. Effects are 

often short-term, and/or minimized through standards and guidelines, but the potential for adverse 

effects cannot always be ruled out. 

The proposed primary constituent elements for riparian woodlands, adequate prey base, and 

dynamic riverine processes have the potential to be adversely affected through implementation of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

341

future projects using guidance in the plan. Therefore, the finding for the yellow-billed cuckoo’s 

proposed critical habitat is also “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.” 

Alternative C would provide slightly more potential yellow-billed cuckoo habitat in Cottonwood 

Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous than alternatives B (modified) and D through the 

addition of 13 recommended wilderness areas. Guidelines for suitability would reduce 

disturbance from motorized dispersed camping and vehicle use in these areas. However, as noted 

in other sections, forest restoration methods would be more limited in wilderness, and given the 

potential for habitat loss resulting from fire, particularly in riparian forests that did not co-evolve 

with fire as natural disturbance, habitat loss could be disproportionately high, given the rarity of 

the ERUs on the forest. As a result, the overall net gain of alternative C over B (modified) is 

minimal. Alternative D would be similar in effect as alternative A in this regard.

Yuma Ridgway’s Rail (YRR)

The following information for Yuma’s Ridgway’s rail is from the Biological Assessment (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The name for Yuma clapper rail was recently changed to Yuma Ridgway’s 

rail. These terms are used interchangeably in this section.

There have never been any Yuma Ridgway’s rails detected on the forest. The Yuma clapper rail

was listed as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). The recovery plan was 

published in 1983 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1983), and a draft revised recovery plan was 

completed in 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). In Arizona, the Yuma clapper rail was 

historically found only along the lower Colorado River from Yuma north to the Bill Williams 

River delta (Phillips et al. 1964). Breeding bird atlas and other survey data show that the Yuma 

clapper rail still occurs throughout most of its previously described range in Arizona along the 

lower Colorado and Gila Rivers (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Habitat use by the Yuma 

clapper rail changes seasonally, with birds using densely vegetated marshes with shallow water 

for nesting, and marsh habitat with low stem densities and moderate water depths for foraging 

and year-round use (Conway et al. 1993). 

The Yuma clapper rail has been on the forest threatened and endangered list primarily due to 

reported detections at Tavasci Marsh sometime in 1997-1998 (Von Gausig 1998). The rails 

detected on private land at Tavasci Marsh were reportedly Yuma clapper rails, but additional 

surveys have not detected any Yuma clapper rails there, or at any other locations on the forest. 

Given that the elevational range of the forest is approximately 2,600 to 12,633 feet, and the 

elevational range of the Yuma clapper rail is 100 to 1,500 feet, it is unlikely that the rail will 

establish on the forest. 

Since Yuma clapper rails are not present on the forest, and are not likely to occur, implementation 

of the proposed plan (or the other alternatives) would not have any effects. If Yuma clapper rails 

are detected on the forest sometime in the future, a BA will be completed and consultation with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service will occur. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

342

Threatened and Endangered: Fish 

Colorado Pikeminnow

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The pikeminnow was once common throughout the Colorado River system, including the Gila 

River Basin, but populations are now found only in scattered areas of the upper Colorado River 

system in Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002c). Colorado 

pikeminnow are believed to have ranged in the Verde River up to Perkinsville, Arizona (Minckley 

and Alger 1968). The experimental populations in Arizona represent the only extant populations 

in the lower Colorado River basin. Colorado pikeminnow potentially occupy the Cherry CreekVerde River, Fossil Creek-Verde River, Grindstone Wash-Verde River HUCs within Cottonwood 

Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. This species is considered to occupy 

the Verde River as it runs along much of the western border of the Coconino NF within 

Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. 

Habitat

Colorado pikeminnow is associated with perennial streamcourses and Cottonwood Willow and 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section. The Colorado pikeminnow is characterized as a large-river 

generalist species, occurring in turbid, deep, and strongly flowing water. The fish has adapted to 

rivers with high seasonally variable flows, high silt loads, and turbulence (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1994a). Young-of-year, juveniles, and sub-adults occupy shallow backwater 

areas with little or no current and silt/sand substrates where young and juveniles will feed on 

insect larvae and zooplankton. Adults and sub-adults are primarily piscivorous, including both 

native and non-native fishes. During flood periods, adults move out of the river channels and 

occupy flooded bottom-lands where they may feed on terrestrial animals (AZGFD 2002a). 

Spawning occurs from late June through about mid-August depending on local hydrology and 

temperature regimes. No critical habitat has been designated on the forest for Colorado 

pikeminnow. 

Risk Factors

Historically, several factors contributed to this species decline and near extinction, most 

significantly, alterations in the hydrologic regime and water quality due to waterway development 

(AZGFD 2002a). Dams have blocked migration routes (Tyus 1991). Water temperature changes 

(e.g., hypolimnetic releases below large dams) can be significant, as cold temperatures can inhibit 

embryonic development (Marsh 1985) and increase early life mortality (Kaeding and Osmundson 

1988). Additionally, interactions with non-native fishes is an important factor in the continued 

survival or success of reintroduced populations of Colorado pikeminnow, especially to juvenile 

recruits (AZGFD 2002a, Creef et al. 1992, Hendrickson 1993, Brooks 1986, and AZGFD 1988) 

all pointed to predatory interactions as an impediment to successful pikeminnow reintroduction. 

Channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and flathead catfish were identified as major predators in 

Arizona. Overlap and interactions with non-native fishes such as red shiner, fathead minnow and 

green sunfish may result in reduced growth and survival of age-0 pikeminnow (Karp and Tyus 

1990). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

343

Coconino NF management activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road 

construction and maintenance, timber management, fire suppression and subsequent standreplacing fires, stream diversion, and permitted livestock grazing. Management needs include: reestablishment of large pikeminnow in historical habitats, amelioration of impacts from non-native 

predatory and competitor fish species, and maintenance and restoration of select habitats within 

historical range.

Environmental Consequences

Table 63 summarizes the viability analysis for Colorado pikeminnow. 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 63. Analysis summary for Colorado pikeminnow

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

(Experimental 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H 

nonessential, 

Restricted 

Distribution)

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 

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 and 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.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

344

Common to All Alternatives

This species also has a recovery plan in place, and Forest plan language includes guidance for 

incorporating recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally listed or candidate species 

(1987 Plan, pages 23 and 64, FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). This guidance would have positive 

contributions to maintaining Colorado pikeminnow viability 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-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. 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species are the greatest 

fine filter threats to Colorado pikeminnow. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes 

habitat improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered 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 alternatives 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). Finally, all alternatives contain plan components provide for some 

guidance to manage introductions of non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section); however, viability of native species is 

threatened on the forest when the focus is limited solely to introductions because most of the 

aquatic habitat on the forest already has undesirable non-native species. 

Three 5th code watersheds (Cherry Creek-Verde River, Fossil Creek-Verde River, and Grindstone 

Wash-Verde River) also have portions of three existing or eligible wild and scenic river areas, 

some with corresponding river management plans that provide for protections of outstandingly 

remarkable values and limit motorized and recreational access. Managing for these outstandingly 

remarkable values would have the effect of improving habitat quality for this species.

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found the continued implementation of the 

Coconino Land Management Plan would result in effects that are discountable. The Biological 

Opinion concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

Since 2011, there have been two amendments to the current plan. One amendment addresses 

cultural resources and has no significant effect on the management of Colorado pikeminnow. The 

second incorporates the direction of the Travel Management Rule into the current plan. The 

decision closed cross-country motorized travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated 

roadways. The Biological Assessments for the Travel Management Rule determined that the 

project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Colorado pikeminnow or its habitat”
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

345

(USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m). The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the finding 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPS across the region was prepared in 

2011, due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

finding for the experimental/nonessential population of Colorado pikeminnow was “not likely to 

jeopardize” (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 2011 BA concluded that after reviewing the 

standards and guidelines in the Coconino NF LRMP, the effects would be insignificant. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in LMRP or significant scientific information 

to warrant a change in the finding. 

Viability

Table 63 shows that perennial streams would remain in poor condition with a static trend relative 

to desired conditions. Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest would remain in fair condition and 

have a slow trend toward desired conditions. In Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, 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. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the Colorado pikeminnow 

is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat as shown in table 63. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the Colorado pikeminnow’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

(high), and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). 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 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. 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.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

346

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. Alternative A 

would maintain or improve riparian forests and associated 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 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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of Colorado pikeminnow on the forest. Alternative A also has forestwide 

language that allows for the construction of barriers to improve fisheries habitat in lakes and 

streams separating native from non-native species and that promotes improvement of habitat 

through the installation of 10 stream improvement projects on perennial streams (1987 Plan, page 

175). This alternative also allows for the retention of logging and other debris in stream channels 

if environmental analysis shows it can be used to improve fisheries habitat (1987 Plan, page 72). 

Other management concerns for Colorado pikeminnow not adequately addressed under 

alternative A include language to address threatened and endangered species conservation 

strategies, integration of riparian, water, and aquatic species management strategies, habitat 

connectivity, and strategies to address climate change. Trends in watershed conditions are likely 

to remain static, with declining flows in perennial streams due to climate change and continued 

water development off forest lands that impact groundwater and stream volume on the forest. 

Colorado pikeminnow populations on the forest are considered experimental, non-essential, and 

are not currently self-sustaining under existing conditions that may continue to degrade due to 

climate change, and increasing groundwater withdrawals outside of Forest jurisdictions. A 

substantial part of these watersheds lie within wilderness areas (32 percent), with protections 

provided within from pollution, development, and sedimentation; however, invasive species 

threats exist throughout. Considering these conditions and cumulative effects, the continued 

implementation of alternative A is not likely to jeopardize the experimental, nonessential 

population of Colorado pikeminnow in the Verde River. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for Colorado pikeminnow was “not likely to 

jeopardize” the 10j population of Colorado pikeminnow due to insignificant effects from forest 

management activities to water quality or stream habitat in the area of the Verde River they 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

347

occupy. The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their draft Biological and 

Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). 

Viability

Table 63 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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). 

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.

As shown in table 63, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Colorado pikeminnow is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the Colorado pikeminnow’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high), CWRF (moderate), and MBDRF 

(moderate) (table 9). 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 the Colorado pikeminnow. 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 a broad array of plan language.

Desired conditions under alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream 

ecosystem function (FW-Water-DC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow 

(FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-Rip-Strm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive 

species (FW-Invas-DC-1). Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) will 

likely move large perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest 

Service 2016j), possibly making habitat suitable for naturally reproducing populations of 

Colorado pikeminnow. 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate the effects of roads and promote connectivity within 

drainages and between streamcourses and upland habitats (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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

348

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). 

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, especially along the Verde River, Towel Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry 

Beaver Creek. Plan components manage for vegetation diversity and riparian function (FW-RipRipType-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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

349

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C will have similar effects to alternative B 

(modified) except that alternative C recommends two additional wilderness areas along the Verde 

River, bordering the existing Hackberry Inventoried Roadless Area. While these areas will add 

some additional acreage to the already protected wilderness, the acreages represent a small 

addition of protected riparian habitat along the river from accessibility and road use. These small 

changes will not change the conditions and trends in aquatic habitats from those provided by 

alternatives B (modified) and D for this species.

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D will have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that

alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area. This area does not 

contain springs and has smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical 

Area designated for alternatives B (modified) and C. 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. These small changes will not change the conditions and 

trends in aquatic habitats from those provided by alternatives B (modified) and C for this species. 

Findings

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of Colorado 

pikeminnow than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of the 

different riparian forest types, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for 

updated language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although 

alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species, but less so than the other alternatives. Although it has 

language to maintain the viability of wildlife species, much of the plan language is outdated. For 

example, it lacks sufficient guidance for invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish 

between the different riparian forest types; and lacks language that would protect endemic species 

or those with restricted distributions.

Gila Chub

Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions

The taxonomic uniqueness of the three chub species currently federally listed in Arizona (Gila, 

roundtail, and headwater) was reviewed recently. On April 6, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

withdrew the proposed listing for headwater chub (Gila nigra) and roundtail chub (Gila robusta) 

in the Lower Colorado River Basin due to the findings of the Joint Committee on the Names of 

Fishes (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017a). These findings concluded that the two formerly 

proposed species, as well as the currently listed Gila chub (Gila intermedia), are no longer valid 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

350

species and should be all considered roundtail chub. The Fish and Wildlife Service is still 

working internally to clarify the process that will be taken for this species complex. It is likely 

that the Fish and Wildlife Service will do a full species status review either for the roundtail chub 

complex in the Distinct Population Segment in the Lower Colorado or potentially range-wide. 

This process is likely to take a few years. In the interim, Gila chub will continue to be considered 

a listed species. Populations considered to be Gila chub are listed in the draft recovery plan 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015a). Roundtail and headwater chub are no longer proposed 

for listing as a threatened or endangered species, but continue to be on the Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list.

Gila chub are found in the Beaver Creek and Oak Creek watersheds within both Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous and Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forests. Both of these riparian forest types in these 

watersheds are moderately departed from reference, primarily due to dispersed recreation that has 

degraded stream side vegetation and compacted soils (USDA Forest Service 2016b). However, 

both are slowly moving toward reference with past damaging practices reduced or eliminated by 

other forest decisions (USDA Forest Service 2016b), such as the Coconino NF Travel 

Management Decision (USDA Forest Service 2011g). Additionally, instream flow rights have 

been sought for Red Tank Draw, and Spring and Walker Creeks have existing rights. Finally, 

existing Walker Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and the Wet Beaver Creek, Munds 

Mountain, and Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness Areas protect parts of critical and potential 

habitat for this species in the Oak and Beaver Creek watersheds from sedimentation due to roads 

and accessibility (15 percent). 

Distribution

Gila chub were historically found in headwater streams of the Gila River drainage in Arizona and 

New Mexico and likely in the Santa Cruz River system in Sonora, Mexico. Present distribution 

on the forest consists of small streams in the Verde River drainage (Red Tank Draw and Walker 

Creeks in the Beaver Creek 5th HUC watershed, and Spring Creek in the Oak Creek 5th HUC 

watershed; 11.8 potential perennial stream miles). Not all of these stream miles are occupied at 

any one time, as population size and distribution is dependent upon habitat conditions, drought, 

and abundance of non-native fish and invertebrate species.

Habitat

Gila chub occur in perennial streams bordered by Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat section. Gila chub were commonly found in association with Gila topminnow, 

desert and Sonora sucker, and longfin and speckled dace. It is highly secretive, seeking out deeper 

waters near cover (AZGFD 2002c). It uses diverse habitat types based on season and age. Habitat 

use varies from deeper, permanent pools or springs to vegetated margins and undercut banks, 

based on life-stage. Gila chub probably mature in their second to third year. Reproduction occurs 

primarily from late spring into summer in streams, but can extend into late winter in constant 

temperature springs. Spawning occurs over beds of submerged aquatic vegetation. Gila chub are 

omnivorous, preferring terrestrial and aquatic insects. At larger sizes, the species becomes 

piscivorous and has been found to consume speckled dace and probably other small cyprinids as 

available. Juveniles will feed throughout the day on insects and filamentous and diatomaceous 

algae (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

351

Critical Habitat

Only small sections of designated critical habitat are present on the Coconino NF. These are 

found in Red Tank Draw and Walker Creek in the Beaver Creek 5th HUC watershed, and Spring 

Creek in the Oak Creek 5th HUC watershed (16.4 miles total). 

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Gila chub are summarized:

• Perennial pools with channel complexity and areas of open waters for passage between 

streambed vegetation;

• Water temperatures appropriate for all life stages at appropriate timing; 

• Water quality criteria including low levels of contaminants, sediments, and meeting 

physiological requirements;

• Sufficient cover, including streamside vegetation, woody debris, boulders, and stable 

streambanks;

• Absence on non-native predators or competitors that are detrimental to Gila chub; and 

• Natural flow and hydrologic pattern, including periodic flooding. 

Risk Factors

Gila chub are highly susceptible to predation by and competition with non-native fish and 

invertebrate species. Activities that degrade water quality, quantity, or change flow regimes will 

impact Gila chub as various life stages of this species use a wide variety of aquatic habitats, from 

deep spring pools, to seeking cover alongside vegetated and undercut banks, and spawning on 

vegetated stream beds (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). Coconino NF management 

activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road construction and maintenance, 

timber management, fire suppression and subsequent stand-replacing fires, stream diversion, and 

recreation and permitted livestock grazing in riparian areas.

Environmental Consequences

Table 64 summarizes the viability analysis for Gila 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 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

352

Table 64. Analysis summary for Gila chub

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Gila chub 

(Endangered, 

Endemic)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

F Rank = F1* CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward

VH Good, slowly 

toward

H 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

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 and 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. 

*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. 

This species has a draft recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015), in place but does 

have critical habitat designated on the forest, some of which is accessible to grazing and 

recreational impacts. Plan language for alternative B (modified) includes guidance for 

incorporating recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally listed or candidate species 

including their critical habitats (FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species the greatest fine 

filter threats to Gila chub. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat 

improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, 

pages 23, 59, 64-6, and 87; FW-LndAdj-G-1; FW-Minerals-G-3; FW-RdsFac-G-7). Additionally, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

353

management applications under alternatives 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). Finally, 

all alternatives contain plan components provide for some guidance to manage introductions of 

non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section); however, viability of native species is threatened on the forest when the focus is 

limited solely to introductions because most of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has 

undesirable non-native species.

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in 2004, 

prior to the listing of Gila chub (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found that the 

Coconino Land Management Plan was “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

Gila chub.” The BA continues: “If the Gila chub is listed as an endangered species, the continued 

implementation of the LRMPs ‘may affect and is likely to adversely affect’ the Gila chub because 

there exists the potential for multiple activities in several programs to be carried out under the 

guidance of the S&Gs which may result in take of Gila chub. The effects are minimized greatly 

particularly by S&Gs in the Watershed and Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Programs to avert 

jeopardizing individual populations. Generally, the overall guidance of the LRMP S&Gs is to 

protect resources while maintaining multiple use activities. Most program guidance in the S&Gs 

does seek to allow multiple uses while still maintaining ecosystem health and function. However, 

some conflicts will arise with effects to the species occurring due to the general lack of complete 

filtering necessary to prevent incidental take. The effects will be minimized due to the guidance 

in the S&Gs; however, incidental take may not be eliminated but should remain very small.” 

For critical habitat, the 2004 BA found that the LRMP is “not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify” “proposed critical habitat for the Gila Chub. If critical habitat is designated officially 

through the rule-making process, continued implementation ‘may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect’ the Gila chub critical habitat” for the same reasons as stated for the species above. There is 

a “lack of complete filtering necessary to prevent adverse influence on the primary constituent 

elements.” 

The 2005 Biological Opinion concurred with these findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2005a). The BO concluded that continued implementation of forest land management plans 

would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Gila chub and would not be likely to 

destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat for the Gila chub. 

Another BA for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region was prepared in

2011 due to new information on species and/or critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

findings in the 2011 BA for the continued implementation of the Coconino LRMP were “may 

affect, likely to adversely affect” for the species and designated critical habitat. These findings 

were for similar reasons as stated in the 2004 BA. The 2012 Biological Opinion concluded that 

continued implementation of the Coconino LRMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Gila chub and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Gila chub designated 

critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

354

Since 2011, there have been two amendments to the current plan. One amendment addressed 

cultural resources by removing plan language that required management to achieve a ‘no effect’ 

determination for significant or potentially significant inventoried sites in consultation with the 

SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) and ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation) (36 CFR 800). The amendment also removed language stating that management 

would strive to achieve a ‘no effect’ determination. This amendment was needed because this 

plan language conflicted with standard practices used to meet the requirements of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. This amendment had no changes in effects on the management of Gila 

chub. The second amendment incorporates the direction from the Travel Management Rule 

decision in 2011 and prohibits motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside of 

designated areas, except where exempted. A biological assessment for the Travel Management 

Rule was prepared in 2010, and was amended in 2011, and both assessments concluded that the 

preferred alternative “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Gila chub or its critical 

habitat” (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m). The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with 

these findings (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). Since 2011, there have been no 

significant changes to the LMRP or significant scientific information to warrant a change in the 

2011 finding for continued implementation of the Coconino LRMP. 

Table 64 shows that under alternative A, 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 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. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the Gila chub is high to 

very high depending on the habitat as shown in table 64. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila chub’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), CWRF (high), and MBDRF (moderate) (table 9). 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 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. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

355

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 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. Alternative A 

would maintain or improve riparian forests and associated 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 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). 

The plan components in alternative A may cause a loss of viability for Gila chub. Management 

concerns for Gila chub not currently or adequately addressed in alternative A include language to 

address management of introduced or invasive or invasive species, threatened and endangered 

species conservation strategies, integration of riparian, water, and aquatic species management 

strategies, language to support habitat connectivity forestwide, and strategies to address climate 

change. While alternative A provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species 

(primarily focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), it is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of Gila chub on the forest (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife 

and Plant Issues and Topics section). Gila Chub occupy the Oak and Beaver Creek watersheds, 

with some of these areas within existing wilderness areas (15 percent), with protections provided 

within from pollution, development, and sedimentation; however, invasive species threats exist 

throughout. Trends in watershed conditions are likely to remain static, with declining flows in 

perennial streams due to climate change and continued water development on off-Forest lands 

that impact groundwater and stream volume on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Populations of this species are very limited within its habitat on the forest, and it is sensitive to 

habitat disturbances that alter streamflows, macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities, and 

introduced or invasive or invasive predators and competitors. 

Based on the existing conditions and trend under current implementation of alternative A within 

the Oak and Fossil Creek watersheds, the continued implementation of alternative A may further 

changes in habitats that contribute to loss of viability for this species. This includes limited 

guidance on management of introduced or invasive or invasive species, unmanaged recreational 

activity in critical habitats of this species contributing to adverse water quality conditions, and 

limited opportunities for acquisition of additional instream flow rights. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

356

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA on the proposed revision of the Coconino LRMP was prepared in 2017 (USDA Forest 

Service 2017c). The BA concluded that the proposed action “may affect, and would likely 

adversely affect” the Gila chub and its designated critical habitat “due to potential adverse effects 

to riparian areas from livestock grazing and increased sediment after thinning and prescribed fire. 

The implementation of plan components related to the implementation of forest plan revision is 

expected to result in adverse short-term effects to critical habitat resulting from activities 

occurring within the watersheds and riparian areas containing Gila chub such as livestock 

grazing, recreation management, and forest management actions but long term benefits due to 

improvement of watershed and riparian conditions and cooperative management of non-native 

species.” 

A draft Biological Opinion was received from the Fish and Wildlife Service on August 8, 2017 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). The draft BO did not conduct a jeopardy analysis of 

Gila chub since there is no such recognized taxonomic entity (82 FR 16981). This is because 

“although the legal status of the Gila chub is as an endangered species, taxonomically it is now 

part of a single taxonomic species that includes the roundtail chub and formerly recognized 

headwater chub.” The Fish and Wildlife Service included a determination that the proposed 

action (alternative B (modified)) “is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical 

habitat for Gila chub.” The legal status of designated critical habitat still exists for Gila chub. No 

incidental take was assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided four discretionary 

conservation recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement 

recovery plans, or develop information. 

Viability

Table 64 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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).

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.

As shown in table 64, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Gila chub is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila chub’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

357

filter habitats associated with the Gila chub. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) will likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j), 

possibly adding more suitable stream habitats to be available for Gila chub.

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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 

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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

358

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 CWRF and MBDRF, this rating is primarily because there are updated desired conditions and 

guidelines that support the composition, structure, and function of riparian forest types (FW-RipRipType-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-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). 

Restoration activities in alternative B (modified) (i.e., installation of non-native species barriers, 

vegetation treatments that reduce uncharacteristic fires within watersheds, vegetation plantings 

and riparian restoration and channel stabilization projects) may have short-term negative impacts 

to Gila chub and its habitat, but they will have long-term benefits to the species. In the long term, 

this guidance would have positive contributions to maintaining Gila chub viability on the forest. 

Gila chub populations are at high risk of injury because they are very small, isolated, and are 

highly susceptible to threats on the forest. These animals occupy perennial streams in highly 

accessible areas, with much of the effects of habitat changes out of Forest jurisdiction. 

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) except that alternative C adds the Deadwood Draw Recommended Wilderness Area, 

increasing the protected acres for Gila chub to 17 percent of their watersheds currently or 

potentially occupied. 

Alternative D

Implementation of plan components under alternative D would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) except that alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological 

Area (which contains no springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and 

Botanical Area designated for alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. These small changes will not change the conditions and 

trends in aquatic habitats from those provided by alternatives B (modified) and C for this species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

359

Findings

Implementation of the plan components under alternatives B (modified), C, and D is not likely to 

cause declines in viability for Gila chub and would contribute more to the viability of this species 

than alternative A. This is due to the updated plan components of alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D for the different riparian forests, for invasive animal species and disease, for updated 

language for water quality, and for language that addresses rare or endemic species. Although 

alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species (see coarse filter analysis) but less so than the other 

alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the viability of wildlife species, much of the 

language of alternative A is outdated. For example, it lacks sufficient guidance for invasive 

animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the different riparian forests; and lacks 

language that would protect endemic species or those with restricted distributions. 

Gila Topminnow

Affected Environment 

Distribution

This species has recently been reintroduced into Fossil Creek, Spring Creek, and Sheepshead 

Canyon (13.7 miles occupied or suitable) on the forest. Topminnow once occupied aquatic 

habitats in the Gila River drainage in New Mexico and Arizona and Mexico below 1,524 meters 

(5,000 feet) in elevation (AZGFD 2001). 

Habitat

The Gila topminnow is associated with perennial streamcourses, springs, and Cottonwood Willow 

and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the 

Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis o.) has historically been 

found in perennial springs, streams, and vegetated margins of the larger Gila River watershed 

streams and river and was once a very common species. They are omnivorous, feeding on 

detritus, algae, and insect larvae—especially mosquito larvae—when available (AZGFD 2001). 

They prefer shallow warmer waters with moderate currents and dense aquatic vegetation. This 

species is quite tolerant; however, and can withstand a wide range of water temperatures, 

salinities, alkalinities, and dissolved oxygen levels (AZGFD 2001c). This species has a unique 

biology in that it is viviparous (gives birth to live young). The reproductive season normally lasts 

from April through November, but young may be produced year-round in some thermally stable 

springs. 

Risk Factors

Threats to the species include: spring habitat development, aquifer pumping, habitat destruction, 

drought, and predation by and competition with non-native fishes. Coconino NF management 

activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road construction and maintenance, 

timber management, fire suppression and subsequent stand-replacing fires, and permitted 

livestock grazing. Management needs include: protection of existing natural populations, 

identification of sites for reintroduction, and re-establishment of populations (AZGFD 2001). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

360

Environmental Consequences

Table 65 summarizes the viability analysis for Gila topminnow. 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 65. Analysis summary for Gila topminnow

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Gila topminnow 

(Endangered, 

Endemic)

F Rank = F1*

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

Springs Fair**, slowly 

toward

VH Fair**, slowly toward VH 

CWRF Fair, slowly toward VH Good, slowly toward H 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly toward H 

Management effects Perennial streams and 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. 

CWRF and 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. 

*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. However, some springs could be in poor or good condition 

depending on accessibility, protection, or degree of development.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

361

Common to All Alternatives

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species are the greatest 

fine filter threats to Gila topminnow. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes 

habitat improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered species such as 

Gila topminnow (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 alternatives 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). Finally, all alternatives contain plan components that provide some 

guidance to manage introductions of non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section); however, viability of native species is 

threatened on the forest when the focus is limited solely to introductions because most of the 

aquatic habitat on the forest already has undesirable non-native species.

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). However, some of these protections afforded by designated wilderness areas also exclude 

motorized access needed for fire and invasive animal species treatments (i.e., stream barrier 

installations) that may reduce the forest’s ability to manage these areas and assist with recovery 

actions.

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

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the continued implementation of forest plans across the region was prepared in 2004 

(USDA Forest Service 2004d). The Coconino NF forest plan was not considered for analysis 

because topminnow were absent from the forest at that time, prior reintroductions had failed, and 

no further reintroductions were anticipated. Gila topminnow were introduced on the forest in 

2007. 

There have been two amendments to the current plan. One amendment addresses cultural 

resources and has no significant effect on the management of Gila topminnow. The second 

amendment incorporated the direction of the Travel Management Rule decision into the current 

plan. The Coconino NF prepared a Biological Assessment for the Travel Management Rule in 

2010, and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m). The decision 

closed cross-country motorized travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated roadways 

(USDA Forest Service 2011g). Based on consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

of forest management activities, the determination of effect for Gila topminnow was “may affect 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

362

but is not likely to adversely affect Gila topminnow or its habitat.” The Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred with the finding 2011e, 2011f). 

The Southwestern Region prepared another biological assessment for the continued 

implementation of the forest LRMPs across the region in 2011(USDA Forest Service 2011f). 

After reviewing the standards and guidelines in the Coconino NF LRMP, the BA contained a 

“may affect and is likely to adversely affect” finding for the Gila topminnow. The 2012 

Biological Opinion concluded that continued implementation of the Coconino NF LRMP is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Gila topminnow (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in the LMRP or significant scientific 

information to warrant a change in the finding. 

Viability

Table 65 shows that under alternative A, 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. 

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. 

CWRF would remain in fair condition and have a slow trend toward desired conditions. In 

CWRF, 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. 

MBDRF 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. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the Gila topminnow is high 

to very high depending on the habitat as shown in table 65. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila topminnow’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each ERU: perennial streams (high), springs (high), CWRF (high), and MBDRF (moderate) 

(table 9). 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 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 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

363

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. 

For springs, this management effect rating is because 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). 

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 does not distinguish between the four different riparian forest 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. This is because plan objectives in 

alternative A do not prescribe realistic or attainable riparian restoration (1987 Plan, pages 172 and 

174) nor is there a focus on watersheds with the greatest need for riparian improvement or 

Functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

While alternative A provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species 

(primarily focused on plant species, (1987 Plan, page 206-72), it is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of Gila topminnow on the forest. Management concerns for Gila topminnow 

not currently addressed under alternative A include language to address management of invasive 

species, threatened and endangered species conservation strategies, integration of riparian, water, 

and aquatic species management strategies, language to support habitat connectivity, and 

strategies to address climate change. Trends in watershed conditions are likely to remain static, 

with declining flows in perennial streams and springs due to climate change and continued water 

development of off-Forest lands that impact groundwater and stream volume on the forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2016j). Populations of this species are very limited within its habitat on the forest

and it is sensitive to habitat disturbances that alter base flows, its macroinvertebrate prey base, 

and introduced or invasive predators and competitors, especially mosquitofish. Alternative A has 

larger acreages of land designated for motorized use that could allow for future road construction 

and increasing sediment in small streams and springs that could reduce the viability of 

topminnow on the forest. 

Alternative B (modified)

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for Gila topminnow was “may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect due to the protections that are in currently in place to protect occupied 

habitats of Gila topminnow from adverse effects of forest management actions.” The Fish and 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

364

Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their draft Biological and Conference Opinion 

received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b).

Table 65 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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).

Springs would remain in fair condition with a trend slowly toward desired conditions, like 

alternative A.

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.

As shown in table 65, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Gila topminnow is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila topminnow’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables 

for each ERU: perennial streams (high), springs (high), CWRF (moderate), and MBDRF 

(moderate) (table 9). 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 the Gila topminnow. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) would likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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. The Davey’s Recommended Wilderness Area includes 1,779 acres 

in a watershed occupied by this species and could benefit topminnow habitat through reduced 

motorized access, stream bank protections, and road construction leading to reductions in erosion 

and sedimentation. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

365

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. 

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). 

For Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

366

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). 

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) except that alternative C recommends four wilderness areas (Hackberry, CimarronBoulder, Tin Can, and Black Mountain) and expansion of an existing wilderness area to provide 

wilderness protections on 89 percent of the Fossil and lower Verde watersheds that provide 

habitat benefits to Gila topminnow. Because this species is very rare, and occupies little of its 

historic habitat, implementation of alternative C may reduce the forest’s ability to implement 

treatments to secure habitats free of invasive species and reduce likelihood of incidents of 

uncharacteristic fire. Motor vehicle use would only be allowed in recommended wilderness areas 

for limited administrative and permitted activities, as long as it is consistent with the area’s 

wilderness character (SA-RWild-G-3); however, if the recommended wildernesses are designated 

by Congress, then motorized access would be limited as described above. 

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contains no 

springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area 

designated for alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. 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

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of Gila 

topminnow than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of the 

different riparian forest types, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for 

updated language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although 

alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species, but less so than the other alternatives. Although it has 

language to maintain the viability of wildlife species, much of the plan language is outdated. For 

example, it lacks sufficient guidance for invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish 

between the different riparian forests; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or 

those with restricted distributions. 

Gila Trout

Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae g.) was considered extirpated from Arizona in 1993 after surveys 

in Gap Creek and the upper Verde River found no fish. The species was reclassified to Threatened 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

367

status in New Mexico and Arizona in 2006, as part of a special rule under section 4(d) of the 

Endangered Species Act in order to allow production and stocking for recreational fishing in these 

states (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). As a recreational fishery that is expected to 

hybridize with rainbow trout (there is no fish barrier preventing connectivity), this population 

does not contribute to the recovery of the species.

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The Gila trout is currently found in West Fork Oak Creek and likely can be displaced to upper 

Oak Creek both of which lie within Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. Historical 

habitat in West Clear Creek is found within Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest. In 

October, 2015, 1,013 adipose-clipped Gila trout were reintroduced into West Fork Oak Creek 

under special status regulations for recreational fishing to build public support of rare and native 

species recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015).

Habitat

The Gila trout is associates with perennial streamcourses and Cottonwood Willow and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat section. Gila trout generally use mountain headwater stream habitats, and, like 

other salmonid species, are sensitive to high stream temperatures, using habitats that rarely 

exceed 21 °C (70 °F). Stream habitats generally are cobble/gravel substrates with high channel 

and cover complexity to provide pool depth and cover during stochastic events such as flooding 

and fire (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, AZGFD 2002d). Gila trout generally feed on 

aquatic invertebrates, and small fishes, but seems to prefer adult and nymph stages of aquatic and 

terrestrial insects (AZGFD 2002d). 

Risk Factors

Gila trout populations are small, isolated and fragmented throughout their range –factors leading 

to their decline and also increasing their vulnerability to injury due to both natural and 

anthropogenic disturbances (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). On the forest, one population 

has been stocked in West Fork of Oak Creek and habitat loss is a concern. Invasive fish species 

threaten the population with predation, competition, and hybridization (especially rainbow trout). 

Many of the small streams and connected springs have had competitive or predatory aquatic 

species introduced for sport purposes, and also have been subject to water development causing 

alterations to habitats both within and outside of Forest jurisdiction. Only 69 percent of the 

riparian forests are under Coconino NF jurisdiction and ownership. 

Coconino NF management activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road 

construction and maintenance, timber management, fire suppression and subsequent standreplacing fires, and permitted livestock grazing. Management needs include continuation of 

delineation and restoration (including removal of non-native fishes) of specific conservation 

waters and stocking for recovery as well as recreational fishing opportunities. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 66 summarizes the viability analysis for Gila trout. 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

368

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 66. Analysis summary for Gila trout

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Gila trout 

(Endangered, 

Endemic)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

F Rank = F1* CWRF Fair, slowly toward VH Good, slowly 

toward

H 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

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 and 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. 

*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. 

There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat improvement and protections for 

projects for threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, pages 23, 59, 64-6, and 87; FWLndAdj-G-1; FW-Minerals-G-3; FW-RdsFac-G-7). Additionally, management applications under 

alternatives B (modified), C, and D provide recommendations to managers regarding approaches 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

369

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). Under all alternatives, grazing is 

currently excluded from West Fork Oak Creek under all alternatives. Finally, all alternatives 

contain plan components provide for some guidance to manage introductions of non-native 

species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section); 

however, viability of native species is threatened on the forest when the focus is limited solely to 

introductions because most of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has undesirable non-native 

species.

Occupied and potential habitat overlap three existing wilderness areas and one inventoried 

roadless area resulting in protection of about 16 percent of the watershed. There is no mechanized 

or motorized use in wilderness and inventoried roadless areas are managed to maintain the overall 

roadless character. Consequently, these areas provide for beneficial watershed protections from 

sediment and bank compaction and erosion (USDA Forest Service 2013, Johnson and Spildie 

2014). 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

The Southwestern Region prepared a BA for the Continued Implementation of Forest LRMPs

across the region in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found that standards and 

guidelines within the region may adversely affect Gila trout. In their Biological Opinion, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service determined that due to ongoing conservation efforts and the status of the 

species they did “not believe the impacts of the proposed action [including the Coconino NF 

LRMP] will rise to the level of jeopardy for the species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

The Coconino NF completed a BA for implementation of the Travel Management Plan in 2010 

and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m). Implementation of 

the Travel Management Plan would close cross-country motorized travel across the forest, 

limiting vehicles to designated roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011m). The determination of 

effect for Gila trout was “no effect” as the species was not present on the forest. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service did not address this determination as “no effect” calls do not require review. 

The Southwestern Region prepared another Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of Forest LRMPs across the region in 2011. The 2011 BA determination of effect 

on Gila trout was a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” finding (USDA Forest Service 2011f).

The 2012 Biological Opinion disagreed with the Forest Service determination and instead the 

Fish and Wildlife Service determined that continued implementation of the Coconino NF “may 

affect but is not likely to adversely affect” the Gila trout because the species was absent from the 

forest and unlikely to be reintroduced during the life of the existing LRMP (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2012d).

A population of Gila trout was repatriated into West Fork Oak Creek by Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and Fish and Wildlife Service in 2015. Communication with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service indicated this stocking did not require environmental analysis as it was not a Forest 

Service action. These prior effects determinations made “no effect” calls because of the absence 

of Gila trout on the forest. The Aquatic Specialist Report described the effect of alternative A on 

Gila trout by analyzing how the effects of the TMR amendment may alter the “may affect, may 

adversely affect” determination made in the 2004 and 2011 LMRP BAs (USDA Forest Service 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

370

2016d). The “may affect, may adversely affect” Gila trout call in the 2011 BA was due to the 

mixed effects of forest plan impacts. Wilderness protections, requirements to meet state water 

quality standards, standards and guidelines that minimize impacts from high recreational use, and 

some long-term beneficial impacts from several forest programs yielded beneficial impacts that 

protect and enhance Gila trout habitat. However, some impacts from guidance provided in the 

LRMP for Fire Management, Rangeland Management, Watershed, and Wildlife, Fish, and Rare 

Plant programs was determined to be insufficient to avoid activities, carried out for these 

programs, that may adversely affect the Gila trout in the short term. Furthermore, grazing is 

permitted in designated wilderness and may impact the watershed. While the Travel Management 

Rules amendment would potentially close roads in the West Fork Oak Creek watershed and 

reduce sedimentation in the stream, these effects would not remove or mitigate the impacts that 

previously yielded a “may affect, may adversely affect” call for Gila trout in both the 2004 and 

2011 BAs, therefore implementation of alternative A “may affect, may adversely affect” Gila 

trout. 

Viability

Table 66 shows that under alternative A, 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 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. 

As shown in table 66, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Gila trout is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila trout’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). 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 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. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

371

“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 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. Alternative A 

would maintain or improve riparian forests and associated 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 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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of Gila trout on the forest. Currently, some wilderness protections are afforded 

by the implementation of broad standards, such as complying with Arizona water quality 

standards that would minimize effects to Gila trout (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74, including 

maintaining at least 80 percent of spawning gravels free of inorganic sediment). However, several 

key management concerns are not currently addressed. These include language to address 

management of introduced or invasive species, threatened and endangered species conservation 

strategies, integration of riparian, water, and aquatic species management strategies, language to 

support habitat connectivity, and strategies to address climate change. Trends in watershed 

conditions are likely to remain static, with declining flows in perennial streams due to climate 

change and continued water development of off-Forest lands that impact groundwater and stream 

volume on the forest. Based on the information provided above and within the Biological 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2016e), the continued implementation of alternative A may 

continue to provide for changes in habitats that are detrimental for this species, including lack of 

management of introduced or invasive species, unmanaged recreational activity in key habitats of 

this species contributing to adverse water quality conditions, and limited opportunities for 

acquisition of additional instream flow rights. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for Gila trout was “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” due to “the limited distribution of Gila trout on the forest and wilderness and 

natural area designations of the West Fork Oak Creek making it unlikely that large scale 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

372

vegetation management projects or other actions would occur in that watershed.” The Fish and 

Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their draft Biological and Conference Opinion 

received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b).

Viability

Table 66 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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).

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.

As shown in table 66, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Gila trout is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Gila trout’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are 

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

The management effect row (table 66) 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 the Gila trout. This means that plan components in 

alternative B 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) would likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

373

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). 

For Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest, 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). 

This species has a recovery plan in place, but does not have critical habitat designated on the 

forest. Currently, only one population of Gila trout is present on the forest, but recovery criteria 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

374

provide for identification and restoration of additional habitats for recovery of the species. Plan 

language for alternative B (modified) includes guidance for incorporating the recovery actions 

and conservation strategies for federally listed or candidate species including their critical habitats 

(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 adds four recommended wilderness areas (20 percent) to 

the West Clear and Oak Creek watersheds that provide habitat benefits to Gila trout. However, 

some of the protections afforded by wilderness areas also exclude motorized access needed for 

fire and invasive species treatments (i.e., stream barrier installations) that may reduce the forest’s 

ability to manage these areas and assist with recovery actions. Because this species is very rare, 

and occupies little of its historic habitat, implementation of alternative C may reduce the forest’s 

ability to implement treatments to secure habitats free of invasive species and reduce likelihood 

of incidents of uncharacteristic fire. 

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation of plan components regarding existing 

wilderness would be the same as alternative A. 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

Implementation of alternatives B (modified) and D would contribute more to the viability of Gila 

trout than alternative A, because of updated plan components for the different riparian forests, for 

invasive animal species and disease, for updated language for water quality, and for language that 

addresses endemic species. Although alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B 

(modified); however, 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. 

Continued management under alternative A would contribute to the viability of this species, but 

less so than the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the viability of wildlife 

species, much of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks sufficient guidance for 

invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the different riparian forests; and 

lacks language that would protect endemic species or those with restricted distributions. 

Little Colorado Spinedace

Affected Environment 

Distribution 

Little Colorado spinedace is endemic to the upper portions of the Little Colorado River and to its 

north flowing permanent tributaries on the Mogollon Rim and the northern slopes of the White 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

375

Mountains in eastern Arizona. This naturally restricted historic range has been extensively 

reduced in the past 50 years by habitat destruction and the introduction of non-native predatory 

and competitive fish species. Spinedace populations have fallen to extreme lows multiple times in 

the last 25 years. On the Coconino NF, the only location known to maintain a population of Little 

Colorado spinedace is within the East Clear Creek drainage, from Leonard Canyon upstream to 

C.C. Cragin Reservoir and upstream of the reservoir to Potato Lake, within Montane Riparian 

Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). 

Habitat

Little Colorado spinedace are associated with perennial streamcourses and Montane Willow 

Riparian Forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. 

Little Colorado spinedace occupy small to medium sized perennial streams, typically using 

medium-sized pools with gravel and silt-mud substrates in moderate currents. Spinedace are 

opportunistic feeders and will consume algae and detritus but prefer aquatic and terrestrial 

insects. These animals spawn in early summer to fall over gravel substrates and can tolerate some 

sediments, but excessive fine sediment in spawning gravels reduces oxygen content and will kill 

incubating eggs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987, AZGFD 2001). This species is desertadapted with populations that fluctuate, based on periods of drought contrasted by flashy episodic 

rain events, and uses residual pools and spring habitat to survive drought periods. The deepest 

pools are thus critical refugia in dry summers and very cold winters. 

Critical Habitat

The Lower and Upper Clear Creek 5th HUC watersheds (East Clear Creek) from Leonard 

Canyon upstream to Blue Ridge Reservoir and upstream from the reservoir to Potato Lake is 

considered critical habitat for Little Colorado spinedace. This lies within the existing Barbershop 

and East Clear Creek Inventoried Roadless Areas of the forest (USDA Forest Service 1987b).

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Little Colorado spinedace are (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1987): 

• Clean, perennial flowing water. 

• Presence of pools and natural hydrograph 

• Free of non-native predators or competitors 

• Presence of fine gravel or silt/mud substrates

Risk Factors

Little Colorado spinedace are endemic and sparsely distributed throughout their habitats on the 

forest. Their historic habitat has been dramatically reduced. Threats include habitat alterations 

from livestock grazing, water development, road construction and timber harvest operations, 

stream gravel removal, and chemical treatment of streams for non-native aquatic species (where 

all natives cannot be salvaged prior to chemical treatment), and introduction of non-native 

predatory and competitive aquatic species (particularly rainbow trout and crayfish species). More 

recently, impact of human populations and their increasing demand for water has adversely 

affected the normal hydrologic regime and thereby the fluctuations of the spinedace populations, 

resulting in accentuated population lows and reduced population highs (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1987). Coconino NF management activities that have contributed to habitat degradation 

include road construction and maintenance, timber management, fire suppression and subsequent 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

376

stand-replacing fires, dam construction (e.g., C.C. Cragin), and permitted livestock grazing 

(AZGFD 2001). 

Environmental Consequences

Table 67 summarizes the viability analysis for Little Colorado spinedace. 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 IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

377

Table 67. Analysis summary for Little Colorado spinedace

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Little Colorado 

spinedace 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

(Threatened, 

Endemic)

F Rank = F1*

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

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.

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. 

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

Limited and reduced perennial flow, disease, competition, and predation through introductions of 

non-native species are the greatest fine filter threats to Little Colorado spinedace. There is 

language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat improvement and protections for projects 

for threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, pages 23, 59, 64-6, and 87; FW-LndAdj-G-1; 

FW-Minerals-G-3; FW-RdsFac-G-7). In addition, management approaches in the sections for 

Roads and Facilities remind managers to consider prioritizing areas for road decommissioning 

where there are impaired or non-attaining riparian areas and habitats for threatened, endangered, 

or sensitive species for which roads are barriers or mortality hazards. Management approaches for 

All Riparian Areas, Stream Ecosystems, and Watersheds and Water reminds managers to consider 

various factors when determining the width of an aquatic management zone including: presence 

of threatened or endangered species, riparian condition, and threat of contamination. Additionally, 

all alternatives contain plan components that provide for some guidance to manage introductions 

of non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section); however, the language in alternative A mainly applies to the Flagstaff Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Analysis Area and the Sedona/Oak Creek Area, which does not include habitat for this 

species.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

378

The Clear Creek watershed includes portions of three eligible wild and scenic river segments, 

which promote protection of outstanding remarkable values, but do not limit recreation. Three 

percent of the watershed lies within existing inventoried roadless areas. Inventoried roadless areas 

are managed to maintain the overall roadless character. Consequently, these areas provide for 

beneficial watershed protections from sediment and bank compaction and erosion (USDA Forest 

Service 2013, Johnson and Spildie 2014). 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

The Southwestern Region prepared a Biological Assessment for the Continued Implementation of 

Forest LRMPs across the region in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found that 

standards and guidelines within the Coconino NF LRMP would adversely affect spinedace and its 

critical habitat. The Biological Opinion found that the majority of standards and guidelines in the 

Coconino NF LRMP would benefit spinedace, and the management “is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the Little Colorado spinedace, and is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

The Coconino NF completed a Biological Assessment for implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan in 2010 and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 

2011m). Implementation of the Travel Management Plan would close cross-country motorized 

travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011g).

Because of the expected reduced sedimentation and improved habitat for spinedace due to road 

closures, the determination of effect for Little Colorado spinedace was “may affect but is not 

likely to adversely affect Little Colorado spinedace or its habitat.” The Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

The Southwestern Region prepared another Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of Forest LRMPs across the region in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 

2011 BA determination of effect was a “may affect, likely to adversely affect.” In their 2012 

Biological Opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service found after “reviewing the current status of the 

Little Colorado spinedace, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the 

proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Little Colorado spinedace, is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated CH, and will not preclude recovery of the species” (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in the LRMP or significant scientific 

information to warrant a change in the finding. 

Viability

Table 67 shows that under alternative A, 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. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

379

As shown in table 67, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor the Little 

Colorado spinedace is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived 

by combining the Little Colorado spinedace’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high) and Montane Willow Riparian Forest

(moderate) (table 9). 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 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. As 

described in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section, the threat of dispersed recreation to riparian 

resources is not addressed forestwide in alternative A nor are invasive or non-native animal 

species addressed. 

The management effect is classified as a 3 for 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 (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). 

Although alternative A has language to provide for species viability, language in alternative A for 

invasive or non-native animal species is insufficient in scope to maintain viability of Little 

Colorado spinedace on the forest. Alternative A addresses recreation impacts (a threat within 

Montane Willow Riparian Forest) through forestwide language that would manage dispersed 

recreation areas for resource protection, capacity monitoring, and public safety. Damaged areas 

would be closed and restored as necessary (1987 Plan, page 57). Management concerns for Little 

Colorado spinedace not currently addressed in alternative A include language to address 

forestwide management of invasive animal species; threatened and endangered species 

conservation strategies; integration of riparian, water, and aquatic species management strategies; 

forestwide language to support habitat connectivity; and updated strategies to address climate 

change. Based on the information provided within Coarse Filter Analysis: Habitat sections for 

Perennial Streamcourses and Montane Willow Riparian Forests and the Biological Assessment 

(USDA Forest Service 2017c), the continued implementation of alternative A may continue to 

provide for changes in habitats that are detrimental for this species, including inadequate 

management of introduced species, high recreational activity in riparian forests of watersheds 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

380

occupied by this species contributing to adverse water quality conditions, and limited 

opportunities for acquisition of additional instream flow rights.

Other risk factors for this species include: road construction, timber harvest, stream gravel 

removal (mining), fire suppression, uncharacteristic fires, and livestock grazing. Plan language as 

it relates to mining, fire suppression, livestock grazing, sediment delivery into connected waters 

(uncharacteristic fire, timber harvest, road construction) is compared in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section for Perennial Streamcourses. Alternative A does not address chemical treatment of 

streams for non-natives; however, it would be addressed during site-specific environmental

analysis for this treatment. There is little plan direction for dam administration and management 

except ensuring that Class A dam inspections occur on a 3-year cycle (1987 Plan, page 90). 

Alternative A also lacks language to protect endemic species. This would not affect Little 

Colorado spinedace; however, it has protections because it is a federally listed species.

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A BA for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared in 2017 (USDA 

Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for Little Colorado spinedace was “may affect, 

likely to adversely affect” due to “adverse effects from livestock grazing and forest management 

projects in watersheds” containing the species. After “reviewing the current status of the Little 

Colorado spinedace and its critical habitat, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 

effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects,” the Fish and Wildlife Service issued 

the biological opinion that “implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Little Colorado spinedace, and will not destroy or 

adversely modify Little Colorado spinedace...designated critical habitats” in their draft 

Biological and Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2017b). No incidental take was assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided four 

discretionary conservation recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help 

implement recovery plans, or develop information. 

Viability

Table 67 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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). 

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 would move 

toward desired condition at a faster rate than alternative A.

As shown in table 67, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for Little 

Colorado spinedace is the same as alternative A, high to very high depending on the habitat. 

These likelihoods were derived by combining the Little Colorado spinedace’s F Rank of F1 with 

the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high) and MWRF 

(moderate) (table 9). 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

381

filter habitats associated with the Little Colorado spinedace. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) will likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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, none are within spinedace habitat

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.

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 and 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 specify 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

382

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

(FW-SpecUse-G-3). 

For Montane Willow 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-RipType-DC-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). 

Restoration activities in alternative B (modified) (i.e., installation of non-native species barriers, 

vegetation treatments that reduce uncharacteristic fires within watersheds, vegetation plantings 

and riparian restoration and channel stabilization projects) may have short-term negative impacts 

to Little Colorado spinedace and its habitat, but they will have long-term benefits to the species. 

Restoration activities are designed to improve habitats to be resilient to changes in stream flow 

and fire regimes associated with climate change that will allow for long-term species persistence 

and viability on the forest. 

This species has a recovery plan in place and also has critical habitat designated on the forest. 

Plan language for alternative B (modified) includes guidance for incorporating the recovery 

actions and conservation strategies for federally listed or candidate species including their critical 

habitats (FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). This guidance has positive contributions to maintaining Little 

Colorado spinedace viability on the forest. Alternative B (modified) provides for some changes in 

the recreational use that will benefit spinedace habitat through reduction in motorized access that 

can encourage decommissioning of roads and reduce sediment in streams for spinedace. These 

changes would likely benefit spinedace habitats, further contributing to improved conditions for 

species viability over time.

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has a guideline to design projects to minimize the 

negative impact of pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals to species and their habitat (FW-WFP-G4). However, like alternative A, chemical treatment of streams for non-natives would be 

addressed during site-specific environmental analysis for this treatment. 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has plan direction for the C.C. Cragin management 

area that overlaps the Upper Clear 5th code watershed that supports the Little Colorado 

spinedace. Management area direction would benefit this species and its habitat by managing this 

area to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfires, flooding, and sedimentation to maintain 

water quality and quantity. In addition, roads and trails in this management area would be 

maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation (MA-CCCrg-G-1 and 2). This watershed also 

occurs in the following management areas: East Clear Creek, Long Valley, Anderson Mesa, and 

Pine Belt. Plan direction would prevent negative impacts to riparian areas and meadows by 

managing motorized recreation and dispersed camping outside of these area (MA-EastClr-G-1; 

MA-LongV-G-1). 

Alternative B (modified) would additionally contribute to the viability of this species through 

language that would prevent or reduce the likelihood of introduction or spread of disease and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

383

would protect and provide for narrowly endemic species and species with restricted distributions 

where they are likely to occur (FW-WFP-G-3, 10, and 12). 

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified), but there are a few meaningful differences. Alternative C includes the addition of 

two recommended wilderness areas and six management areas in the East Clear Creek 

watersheds. The management areas have an emphasis on reduced human-related disturbance. All 

of these areas would provide some habitat benefits to Little Colorado spinedace because they 

restrict public motorized access that can lead to increased sediment in connected perennial waters. 

However, some acreages of the recommended wilderness or new management areas overlap with 

designated inventoried roadless areas or are such a distance from perennial waters, that little 

increase in protection to perennial stream habitat is likely from implementation of these areas 

(USDA Forest Service 2013). Alternative C does include the East Clear Creek, Hospital Ridge, 

Knoll Lake management areas within the Leonard Canyon and Clear Creek watersheds with 

specific focus on restoration and protection of Little Colorado spinedace habitats. These areas 

contain 46,511 acres (including the 3,346 acres of existing special areas) that protect spinedace 

habitat and management direction emphasizes this species. While restoration activities needed to 

improve habitat would be likely to adversely affect the species and its habitat during the short 

term, restoration projects will improve conditions and viability for a substantial proportion of 

spinedace habitat over the long term. Activities such as installation of non-native species barriers, 

vegetation treatments that reduce uncharacteristic fires within watersheds, vegetation plantings, 

and riparian forest and stream channel stabilization projects may increase sediments and reduce 

water quality over a period of a few years, but would have long-term benefits to the species.

The direction in the management areas that emphasize reduced human-related disturbance would 

benefit this species and its habitat by maintaining the ecological integrity of watersheds, 

headwater environments and native vegetation; assuring that streams and perennial waters 

support identified designated beneficial uses; springs, streams and wetlands are protected and 

restored; river and stream corridors have long-term protection; and Little Colorado spinedace 

(among other species) are emphasized and able to find properly functioning and restored habitat 

(Appendix F). Riparian corridors would provide biologically significant corridors for wildlife and 

fish through the landscape. In addition, recreation activities would be predominantly low 

disturbance, non-motorized, and would not negatively impact hydrologic flow, soil condition or 

habitat connectivity (Appendix F, MA-EastClr-DC-1 to 4, 9, and 10; MA-BlueRidge-DC-1 to 4, 

6, 10, and 11; MA-HospRdg-DC-1 to 4, 6, and 9; MA-ScndChnc-DC-1 to 4, 6, and 9). Within the 

Blue Ridge MA and Hospital Ridge MA, watersheds that support Leonard Canyon and East Clear 

Creek, including the headwaters, would be protected and restored (Appendix F, MA-BlueRidgeDC-9 and 10; MA-ScndChnc-DC-10). 

Alternative D

Implementation of plan components under alternative D would have effects similar to alternative 

B (modified) for Little Colorado spinedace habitats. 

Findings

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of Little 

Colorado spinedace than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of 

the different riparian forests, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

384

updated language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although 

alternative C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species, but less so than the other alternatives. Although it has 

language to maintain the viability of wildlife species, much of the plan language is outdated. For 

example, it lacks sufficient guidance for invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish 

between the different riparian forests; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or 

those with restricted distributions. 

Loach minnow

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Historically, the species was endemic to the Gila River basin, upstream of Phoenix in the Agua 

Fria, Gila, Salt, San Pedro and Verde River systems. Loach minnow occurred on the forest 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, but has since 

been considered extirpated. The only known population remaining on the forest is the recently 

reintroduced population in Fossil Creek, but no evidence of reproduction has been found and 

stocking attempts have at least temporarily ceased (USDA Forest Service 2017c; AZGFD 2010).

Habitat

Loach minnow and its critical habitat are currently found in perennial streams within Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous and Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest habitats on the Coconino NF. 

These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Loach minnow is a 

bottom-dwelling inhabitant of turbulent riffle habitats that contain large cobble/boulder 

substrates. This species uses the spaces between and in behind larger substrates, spends their 

entire life history in these habitats, and is rare or absent from habitats where fine sediments fill 

the interstitial spaces. Depending on elevation, loach minnow spawns from early spring through 

mid-summer, laying adhesive eggs attached under the downstream side of cobbles. Loach 

minnow feed exclusively on benthic aquatic insects.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat was designated in 2012 in Fossil Creek from the Fossil Diversion Dam 

downstream 13.8 miles. It includes the Verde River from Grindstone Wash downstream to the 

confluence with Fossil Creek, and the lower portions of Oak Creek, Beaver/Wet Beaver Creeks, 

and Fossil Creek on the forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012c).

The primary constituent elements for loach minnow critical habitat are:

• Habitat to support all life stages (perennial flow, appropriate habitat complexity with 

gravel, cobble, and rubble substrates, low fine sediments and embeddedness, water 

temperatures from 46.4 to 77 °Fahrenheit); 

• Abundant macroinvertebrate prey base 

• Low pollutants
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

385

• Perennial flows with at least seasonal corridors between occupied habitats

• Lack of non-native species or low levels to allow persistence

• Normative flow regime

Risk Factors

Loach minnow populations have been impacted by dewatering of stream reaches by water 

diversions and dams, livestock grazing, habitat alteration, and introduced or invasive or nonnative fish, especially catfishes and red shiner (AZGFD 2010). Coconino NF management 

activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road construction and maintenance, 

timber management, fire suppression and subsequent stand-replacing fires, stream diversion, and 

permitted livestock grazing. Management needs include: conservation, protection, and monitoring 

of existing populations, reduce or eliminate impacts from non-native predatory and competitive 

fish species, enhancement or restoration of select habitats within historical range, and 

reintroduction into select historical habitats.

Environmental Consequences

Table 68 summarizes the viability analysis for loach minnow. 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 68. Analysis summary for loach minnow

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Loach minnow 

(Endangered, 

Endemic)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

F Rank = F1* CWRF Fair, slowly toward VH Good, slowly 

toward

H 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

H 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

386

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

H Good, slowly 

toward

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 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.

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. 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species the greatest fine 

filter threats to loach minnow. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat 

improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered 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 alternatives 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). Finally, 

all alternatives contain plan components provide for some guidance to manage introductions of 

non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section); however, viability of native species is threatened on the forest when the focus is 

limited solely to introductions, because most of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has 

undesirable non-native species.

Currently, 19 percent of the 5 watersheds with loach minnow habitat lie within inventoried 

roadless area or designated wilderness. There is no mechanized or motorized use in wilderness 

and inventoried roadless areas are managed to maintain the overall roadless character. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

387

Consequently, these areas provide for beneficial watershed protections from sediment and bank 

compaction and erosion (USDA Forest Service 2013, Johnson and Spildie 2014).

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 loach minnow. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

The Southwestern Region prepared a Biological Assessment for the Continued Implementation of 

Forest LRMPs across the region in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA determined 

that forest plans, including the Coconino NF LRMP, were likely to adversely affect loach minnow 

and its critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service did not include the Coconino NF LRMP in 

their 2005 Biological Opinion (perhaps because loach minnow were absent from the forest), but 

determined that the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coronado, and Gila NF LRMPs would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of loach minnow (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

The Coconino NF completed a Biological Assessment for implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan in 2010 and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 

2011m). Implementation of the Travel Management Plan would close cross-country motorized 

travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011g).

Based on analysis of road closures, the determination of effect was “may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect” for both loach minnow and its critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

The Southwestern Region prepared another Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of forest LRMPs across the region in 2011. The 2011 BA determination of effect 

was again “likely to adversely affect” loach minnow and its critical habitat due to “at least shortterm adverse effects to aquatic habitats” (USDA Forest Service 2011f). After reviewing the 

current status of the loach minnow, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of 

the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the 

Coconino LRMP would “not jeopardize the continued existence of the loach minnow” (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in the LRMP or significant scientific 

information to warrant a change in the finding. 

Table 68 shows that under alternative A, 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

388

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. 

As shown in table 68, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for loach 

minnow is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining loach minnow’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), and Montane Willow Riparian Forest

(moderate, except the Upper Clear Creek 5th code HUC is high) (table 9). 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 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. 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 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 associated 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

389

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). 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species are the greatest 

fine filter threats to loach minnow. Alternative A provides some guidance to reduce introductions 

of non-native species (primarily focused on plant species) (1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this 

language is insufficient in scope to maintain viability of loach minnow on the forest. Currently, 

some watershed protections are afforded by the implementation of broad standards, such as 

complying with Arizona water quality standards that would minimize impacts to loach minnow 

(1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74). However, several key management concerns are not currently 

addressed. These include language to address management of introduced or invasive species, 

threatened and endangered species conservation strategies, integration of riparian, water, and 

aquatic species management strategies, language to support habitat connectivity, and strategies to 

address climate change.

Alternative A maintains much of the acreage currently designated as motorized use with the 

Cherry Creek-Verde River and Grindstone Wash-Verde River watersheds and could, therefore, 

have watershed impacts associated with both increased recreational access and roads that increase 

sediments, compact soils, and damage vegetation. Loach minnow are very sensitive to increased 

sediments in streams, so these conditions would have adverse effects. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The lack of loach minnow on the forest resulted in a “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for loach minnow. Due to adverse effects on 

riparian vegetation and increases in sediment delivery from potential forest plan projects, the 

forest determined that the LRMP “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” critical habitat for 

loach minnow. The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” finding for loach minnow in their draft Biological and Conference Opinion 

received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). Despite short-term adverse 

effects from Forest projects, the long-term effects of the LRMP would minimize impacts or 

improve loach minnow habitat, so the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Coconino 

LRMP would not “diminish the ability of critical habitat to contribute to the conservation and 

recovery [of]... loach minnow” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). No incidental take was 

assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided four discretionary conservation 

recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, 

or develop information. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

390

Viability

Table 68 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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). 

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 would move 

toward desired condition at a faster rate than alternative A.

As shown in table 68, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for loach 

minnow is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining loach minnow’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high if accessible), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

(moderate), Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), and Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). 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 loach minnow. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) will likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

391

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). 

For Cottonwood Willow, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous, and Montane Willow riparian forest types, 

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-RipRipType-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-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). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

392

This species has both a recovery plan and critical habitat designated on the forest, some of which 

is accessible to grazing and recreational impacts. Plan language for alternative B (modified) 

includes guidance for incorporating the recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally 

listed or candidate species including their critical habitats (FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). 

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified). Alternative C adds the Walker Mountain Recommended Wilderness Area, which 

includes 1,930 acres of the West Clear Creek watershed. This recommended wilderness area 

would include about 15 percent of the loach minnow habitat on the forest. Three other 

recommended wilderness areas would add three percent more of the watersheds occupied or with 

designated critical habitat for loach minnow. However, the Walker Mountain Recommended 

Wilderness Area overlaps with the Walker Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. Inventoried 

roadless areas are managed to maintain the overall roadless character. Consequently, the Walker 

Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area already provides for beneficial watershed protections from 

sediment and bank compaction and erosion (USDA Forest Service 2013, Johnson and Spildie 

2014). Accordingly, the Walker Mountain Recommended Wilderness Area would provide little 

added protections for loach minnow habitat compared to alternatives A or B (modified). 

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contains no 

springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area 

designated for alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. 

Findings

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of loach 

minnow than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of the different 

riparian forests, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for updated 

language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although alternative 

C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species (see coarse filter analysis and Forestwide Language), but 

less so than the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the viability of wildlife 

species, much of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks sufficient guidance for 

invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the different riparian forest 

types; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or those with restricted 

distributions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

393

Razorback Sucker

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The razorback sucker is currently present on the Coconino NF in the Cherry Creek-Verde River, 

Fossil Creek-Verde River, and Grindstone Wash-Verde River 5th HUC watersheds within 

Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests (11.9 potential perennial 

stream miles). The species has been reintroduced into Fossil Creek (10.7 potential perennial 

stream miles). This species was once common throughout the Colorado River Basin, but now it 

exists sporadically in only about 750 miles of river in the upper basin. In the lower basin, a 

substantial population exists only in Lake Mohave with occasional individuals occurring both 

upstream in Lake Mead and the Grand Canyon and downstream in the Colorado River mainstem 

and associated impoundments (AZGFD 2002e). With the exception of reintroduced individuals in 

Fossil Creek, there is no evidence of razorback sucker inhabiting any tributaries on the forest, but 

it is speculated they may have occasionally used the lower reaches of the larger tributaries.

Habitat

Razorback sucker is associated with perennial streamcourses and Cottonwood Willow and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated in the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat section. Razorback sucker use a variety of habitats within large rivers s in the 

Colorado River basin. During spring, adult suckers use deep runs, eddies, backwaters and flooded 

off-channel environments, shallow runs and pools often associated with submerged sandbars in 

summer, and low-velocity runs, eddies, and pools in winter (AZGFD 2002e). Spawning typically 

occurs at temperatures greater than 14 °C over bars of cobble, gravel, and sand substrates in 

rivers and over rocky shoals and shorelines in reservoirs. Nursery habitat typically occurs in 

quiet, warm, shallow water such as tributary mouths, backwaters, inundated floodplain habitats in 

rivers, and coves or shorelines of reservoirs (NatureServe 2015).

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat was designated in 1994, and includes portions of the Verde, Gila, and Salt Rivers 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Designated critical habitat in the Verde River extends 

from Horseshoe Reservoir upstream to Sullivan Lake (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

Critical habitat on the Coconino NF is the section of the Verde River from Fossil Creek upstream 

to Perkinsville. The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for razorback sucker are:

• Perennial waters of appropriate quality, quantity, and following a normative hydrograph 

• Suitable habitat for all life stages, including larger river channels, with bottomlands, side 

channels, and backwaters that provide larval rearing habitats.

• Suitable prey for all life stages with reduced influence from non-native predators or 

competitors.

Risk Factors

Threats to the species include: altered flow hydrology and cold tailwater releases from reservoirs, 

water diversion, and predation by and competition with non-native fishes (AZGFD 2002e). 

Coconino NF management activities that have contributed to habitat degradation include road

construction and maintenance, timber management, fire suppression and subsequent stand-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

394

replacing fires, stream diversion, and permitted livestock grazing. Management needs include: 

amelioration of effects of reservoirs and non-native fish species, and continued monitoring of 

populations. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 69 summarizes the viability analysis for razorback sucker. 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 69. Analysis summary for razorback sucker

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Razorback sucker 

(Endangered)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static H Poor, toward H 

F Rank = F2* 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 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 and 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.

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-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

395

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. 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species the greatest fine 

filter threats to razorback sucker. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat 

improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered 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 alternatives 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). Finally, 

all alternatives contain plan components provide for some guidance to manage introductions of 

non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section); however, viability of native species is threatened on the forest when the focus is 

limited solely to introductions because most of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has 

undesirable non-native species.

The three 5th code watersheds (Cherry Creek-Verde River, Fossil Creek-Verde River, and 

Grindstone Wash-Verde River) have three wilderness areas and three inventoried roadless areas 

that are adjacent, providing protections for 32 percent of the watersheds. There is no mechanized 

or motorized use in wilderness and inventoried roadless areas are managed to maintain the overall 

roadless character. These three watersheds also have portions of five existing or eligible wild and 

scenic river areas, some with corresponding river management plans that provide for protections 

of remarkable values and limit motorized and recreational access. Consequently, management of 

these areas provides for beneficial watershed protections from sediment and bank compaction and 

erosion (USDA Forest Service 2013, Johnson and Spildie 2014). 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

The Southwestern Region prepared a Biological Assessment for the Continued Implementation of 

Forest LRMPs across the region in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found that 

standards and guidelines within the Coconino NF LRMP were “not likely to adversely affect” 

both razorback sucker and its critical habitat. The Biological Opinion concurred with the finding

for razorback suckers of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005a). 

The Coconino NF completed a Biological Assessment for implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan in 2010 and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 

2011m). Implementation of the Travel Management Plan would close cross-country motorized 

travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011g).

The determination of effect for both razorback sucker and its critical habitat was “may affect but 

is not likely to adversely affect” based on the potential for reduced sedimentation into waterways. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service again concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011e, 2011f). 

The Southwestern Region prepared another Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of Forest LRMPs across the region in 2011. The 2011 BA determination of effect 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

396

was a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” finding for razorback sucker and “will not 

destroy or adversely modify” its critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 2012 

Biological Opinion concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in the LMRP or significant scientific 

information to warrant a change in the finding. 

Viability

Table 69 shows that under alternative A, 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 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. 

As shown in table 69, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

razorback sucker is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the razorback sucker’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

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

Deciduous Riparian Forests, 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

397

maintain or improve riparian forests and associated 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 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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain species viability on the forest. Currently, some watershed protections are afforded by the 

implementation of broad standards, such as complying with Arizona water quality standards that 

would minimize impacts to razorback sucker (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74). However, several key 

management concerns are not currently addressed. 

However, alternative A maintains most of the acreage currently designated as motorized use with 

the Cherry Creek-Verde River and Grindstone Wash-Verde River watersheds and could, therefore, 

have watershed impacts associated with both increased recreational access and roads that increase 

sediments, compact soils, and damage vegetation. This impact is likely small relative to the 

normative hydrology and water quantity threats that lie outside of Forest jurisdiction for these 

large river species. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for razorback sucker was 

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” due to insignificant effects from forest management 

activities to water quality and stream habitat they may inhabit. The forest also concluded that the 

LRMP “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” critical habitat for razorback sucker. The

Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with both findings in their draft Biological and Conference 

Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). 

Viability

Table 69 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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).

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

desired conditions except portions of the Verde River would improve faster (i.e., have a trend 

toward desired conditions). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

398

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.

As shown in table 69, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the

razorback sucker is moderate-high to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining the razorback sucker’s F Rank of F2 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

(moderate), and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). 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 the razorback sucker. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) would likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate the effects of roads and promote connectivity within 

drainages and between streamcourses and upland habitats (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 

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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

399

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 and 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 and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests, 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-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 and 3). 

This species has both a recovery plan and critical habitat designated on the forest, some of which 

is accessible to grazing and recreational impacts. Plan language for alternative B (modified) 

includes guidance for incorporating the recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally 

listed or candidate species including their critical habitats (FW-WFP-G-1 and 2). 

Finally, alternative B (modified) add the Davey’s recommended wilderness area in the Fossil 

Creek-Lower Verde River watershed (1,779 acres). Recommended wilderness areas are managed 

to maintain or enhance the primitive and undeveloped characteristics of the area (SA-RWild-DC1).With this recommended wilderness area, special protections would increase cover 33 percent 

of the occupied watersheds for razorback sucker. Given the added recommended wilderness area 

protections, the comprehensive river management plan being developed for the Fossil Creek Wild 

and Scenic River, increasing emphasis and comprehensive guidance for invasive species, and 

comprehensive guidance for protection of federally listed species, implementation of plan 

components under alternative B (modified) will maintain viability on the forest. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

400

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) except alternative C adds four recommended wilderness areas in the Fossil CreekVerde River watershed, increasing protected special areas to 67 percent of potentially occupied 

watersheds.

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contains no 

springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area 

designated for alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. 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

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of razorback 

sucker than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of the different 

riparian forests, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for updated 

language for water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although alternative 

C would have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would 

contribute to the viability of this species (see coarse filter analysis and Forestwide Language) but 

less so than the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the viability of wildlife 

species, much of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks sufficient guidance for 

invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the different riparian forest 

types; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or those with restricted 

distributions. 

Spikedace

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Historically, the spikedace was common and locally abundant throughout the upper Gila River 

Basin of Arizona and New Mexico. Its distribution was widespread in large and moderate-sized 

rivers and streams in Arizona, including the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers and their major 

tributaries. It was 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 (73.2 potential perennial stream miles). Spikedace now occurs in only Fossil 

Creek, as a result of recent repatriation efforts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

401

Habitat

Spikedace and its critical habitat are currently found in perennial streams within all Cottonwood 

Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous riparian forests. These habitats are more fully evaluated 

in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section. Spikedace occupy mid-elevation medium-sized perennial 

stream habitats usually less than 1 meter deep, with slow to moderate water velocities over sand, 

gravel, or cobble substrates. Adults often aggregate in shear zones along gravel-sand bars where 

rapid water borders slower flow, quiet eddies on the downstream edges of riffles, and broad 

shallow areas above gravel-sand bars. In winter, the species congregates along stream margins 

with cobble substrates. The erratic flow patterns of southwestern streams that include periodic 

spates and recurrent flooding are essential to the feeding and reproduction of the spikedace by 

scouring the sands and keeping gravels clean. Spikedace larvae and juveniles tend to occupy 

shallow, peripheral portions of streams that have slow currents and sand or fine gravel substrates, 

but will also occupy backwater habitats. The young typically occupy stream margin habitats, 

where the water velocity is less than 0.16 foot per second (5 centimeters per second) and the 

depth is less than 1.96 inches (5 centimeters). Spawning extends from mid-March into June and 

occurs in shallow (less than 15 centimeters [5.9 inches] deep) riffles with gravel and sand bottoms 

and moderate flow. By mid-May, most spawning has occurred, although in years of high water 

flows, spawning may continue into late May or early June. Spikedace feed primarily on aquatic 

and terrestrial insects (AZGFD 2013b, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012c). 

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat designated on the forest includes perennial reaches of the Verde River from Fossil 

Creek confluence upstream, Granite Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and 

Fossil Creek (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012c). The primary constituent elements of 

critical habitat for spikedace are:

• Suitable perennial flow habitat for all life stages, including variable stream flows, glides, 

runs, riffles, the margins of pools and eddies, and backwater components over sand, 

gravel, and cobble substrates with low or moderate amounts of fine sediment and 

substrate embeddedness.

• Suitable and abundant aquatic macroinvertebrate prey 

• Streams with no or no more than low levels of pollutants 

• Perennial waters of appropriate quality, quantity, connectivity. 

• Reduced or eliminated impacts from non-native predators or competitors. 

• Perennial flows following a normative hydrograph 

Risk Factors

Threats to the species include: stream flow depletion, diversion, habitat alteration and competition 

with non-native crayfishes, and predation by and competition with non-native fishes, especially 

red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis). Coconino NF management activities that have contributed to 

habitat degradation include road construction and maintenance, timber management, fire 

suppression and subsequent stand-replacing fires, stream diversion, and permitted livestock 

grazing. Management needs include: conservation, protection, and monitoring of existing 

populations, amelioration of impacts from non-native predatory and competitor species, 

enhancement or restore select habitats within its historical range, and further reintroduce into 

select historical habitats (AZGFD 2013b).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

402

Environmental Consequences

Table 70 summarizes the viability analysis for spikedace. 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 70. Analysis summary for spikedace

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 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

Spikedace 

(Endangered)

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

F Rank = F1* CWRF Fair, slowly toward VH Good, slowly 

toward

H 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

H Good, slowly 

toward

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 and 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. 

*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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

403

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species are the greatest 

fine filter threats to spikedace. There is language under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat 

improvement and protections for projects for threatened and endangered 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 alternatives 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). Finally, 

all alternatives contain plan components provide for some guidance to manage introductions of 

non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and 

Topics section); however, viability of native species is threatened on the forest when the focus is 

limited solely to introductions because most of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has 

undesirable non-native species.

Restoration activities are foreseeable under all alternatives and may have short-term negative 

impacts to spikedace habitat. But increased motorized access in Oak and Beaver Creeks may 

continue to cause adverse impacts from loss of streamside vegetation, compaction of soils, and 

increased sedimentation within the highly accessible areas. Vegetation treatments in Ponderosa 

Pine and Pinyon Juniper ERUs in the Upper and Lower Verde and West Clear Creek watersheds 

may cause short-term increases in the amount of sediment that enters these drainages. The rate 

and scope of future treatments is unknown. However, restoration activities are designed to 

improve habitats to be resilient to changes in stream flow and fire regimes associated with climate 

change that will allow for long-term species persistence and viability on the forest. 

One existing wilderness area provides some watershed protections (1 percent) within the 

following two 5th code HUCs: the Cherry Creek-Verde River and Grindstone Wash-Verde River 

watersheds. Currently, 16 percent of the 6 watersheds occupied or designated critical habitat for 

spikedace lie within inventoried roadless area or wilderness protections. There is no mechanized 

or motorized use in wilderness and inventoried roadless areas are managed to maintain the overall 

roadless character. Consequently, management of these areas provides for beneficial watershed 

protections from sediment and bank compaction and erosion (USDA Forest Service 2013, 

Johnson and Spildie 2014). 

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 spikedace. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

404

The Southwestern Region prepared a Biological Assessment for the Continued Implementation of 

Forest LRMPs across the region in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The 2004 BA found that 

standards and guidelines within the Coconino NF LRMP were “likely to adversely affect” both 

spikedace and its critical habitat. The Biological Opinion determined that the region’s LRMPs 

(including the Coconino NF) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

spikedace (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). 

The Coconino NF completed a Biological Assessment for implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan in 2010 and amended the assessment in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 

2011m). Implementation of the Travel Management Plan would close cross-country motorized 

travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011gt 

likely to adversely affect” based on the potential for reduced sedimentation into waterways. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service again concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011e, 2011f). 

The Southwestern Region prepared another Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of Forest LRMPs across the region in 2011. The 2011 BA determination of effect 

was a “likely to jeopardize” finding for spikedace and its habitat due to variety of habitat impacts, 

including impacts from grazing and fire (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 2012 Biological 

Opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that after reviewing the anticipated impacts of 

standards and guidelines in the Coconino NF LRMP, the forest action would “not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the spikedace nor destroy or adversely modify proposed CH” (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in the LRMP or significant scientific 

information to warrant a change in the finding. 

Viability

Table 70 shows that under alternative A, 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 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. 

As shown in table 70, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for 

spikedace is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the spikedace’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for 

each ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

405

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 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. 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 and Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian Forests, 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 associated 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 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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of spikedace on the forest. Currently, some wilderness protections are afforded 

by the implementation of broad standards, such as complying with Arizona water quality 

standards that would minimize affects to spikedace (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74, including 

maintaining at least 80 percent of spawning gravels free of inorganic sediment). 

Alternative A provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of spikedace on the forest. Currently, some wilderness protections are afforded 

by the implementation of broad standards, such as complying with Arizona water quality 

standards that would minimize effects to spikedace (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74, including 

maintaining at least 80 percent of spawning gravels free of inorganic sediment). However, several 

key management concerns are not currently addressed. Alternative A maintains much of the 

acreage currently designated as motorized use with the Cherry Creek-Verde River and Grindstone 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

406

Wash-Verde River watersheds and could therefore have watershed impacts associated with both 

increased recreational access and roads that increase sediments, compact soils, and damage 

vegetation. Spikedace are sensitive to increased sediments and embeddedness in streams, so these 

conditions will have adverse effects and will further adversely impact viability of Spikedace on 

the forest. Additionally, under alternative A, the Oak and Beaver Creek watersheds, of which the 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest is highly departed in accessible areas, has the greatest 

acreages reserved for motorized vehicle access that contributes to adverse conditions in 

watersheds (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for spikedace was “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” because “the implementation of plan components are 

expected to have insignificant effects to spikedace in occupied portions of Fossil Creek and 

Spring Creek due to livestock exclosures in those areas and a low percentage of the watersheds 

containing ERU types such as ponderosa that are a high priority for management actions.” The 

forest concluded that the LRMP “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” critical habitat for 

spikedace because of “potential short-term effects due to projects that affect riparian vegetation or 

increase sediment delivery in the short or long term to streams containing Spikedace Critical 

Habitat.” The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the finding for spikedace and determined 

that implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP...will not destroy or adversely 

modify...spikedace designated critical habitats in their draft Biological and Conference Opinion 

received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). No incidental take was 

assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided four discretionary conservation 

recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement recovery plans, 

or develop information. 

Viability

Table 70 shows that under alternative B (modified) 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).

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.

As shown in table 70, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for 

spikedace is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining spikedace’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each 

ERU: perennial streams (high), Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), and Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are 

considered to be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

407

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 spikedace. 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 a broad array of plan language. Desired conditions under 

alternative B (modified) support and trend to improved stream ecosystem function (FW-WaterDC-2 and 3) and collaborative efforts to maintain stream flow (FW-Water-DC-5 and 6; FW-RipStrm-DC-4) and reduce or eliminate the impacts of invasive species (FW-Invas-DC-1). 

Implementation of plan components under alterative B (modified) would likely move large 

perennial stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j). 

Other plan language is designed to mitigate 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. The Davey’s Recommended Wilderness Area adds 1,779 acres 

of protected habitats to Fossil Creek-Verde river watershed, or 17 percent total of occupied 

watersheds. 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 

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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

408

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 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). 

This species has both a recovery plan and critical habitat designated on the forest, some of which 

is accessible to grazing and recreational impacts. Plan language for alternative B (modified) 

includes guidance for incorporating the recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally 

listed or candidate species including their critical habitats (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 provides recommendations for five new recommended 

wilderness areas. These recommended wilderness areas would protect 20 percent of the total 

watersheds occupied or with designated critical habitat for spikedace. However, some of the 

protections afforded by wilderness areas also exclude motorized access needed for fire and 

invasive species treatments (i.e., stream barrier installations) that may reduce the forest’s ability 

to manage these areas and assist with recovery actions. 

Alternative D

Implementation of alternative D would have similar effects to alternative B (modified) except that 

alternative D would designate only the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contains no 

springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area 

designated for alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C as recommended wilderness would not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

409

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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. These small changes will not change the conditions and 

trends in aquatic habitats from those provided by alternatives B (modified) and C for this species.

Findings

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of spikedace 

than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of the different riparian 

forests, for invasive animal species and associated disease management, for updated language for 

water quality, and for language that addresses endemic species. Although alternative C would 

have the same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would contribute to 

the viability of this species (see coarse filter analysis and Forestwide Language), but less so than 

the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the viability of wildlife species, much 

of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks sufficient guidance for invasive animal 

species or disease; does not distinguish between the different riparian forests; and lacks language 

that would protect endemic species or those with restricted distributions. 

Threatened and Endangered: Mammals

Black-footed Ferret

The black-footed ferret was listed as Endangered in on March 11, 1967 without critical habitat 

(32 Federal Register 4001). Experimental nonessential populations were designated on March 20, 

1996 (61 Federal Register 11320). 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Historically, black-footed ferrets were found in western Coconino County eastward north of the 

Mogollon Rim in the range of the Gunnison’s prairie dog, and it possibly ranged south of the Rim 

in the habitat of the black-tailed prairie dog in Graham, Apache, and Cochise Counties (AZGFD 

2001). 

Habitat

Black-footed ferret habitat is the same grassland habitat used by prairie dogs (Great Basin 

Grasslands, Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, and Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERUs). They are 

nearly always associated with prairie dogs, and live in prairie dog towns and raise their young in 

the prairie dog burrows (AZGFD 2001). 

Risk Factors

The black-footed ferret was extirpated from virtually all of its range because of prairie dogs and 

predator control programs. Prairie dogs were poisoned relentlessly in the 1930s. Since that time, 

the prairie dog has been able to reestablish itself in areas poisoned decades ago. It is now locally 

common in areas like the Coconino Plateau. The ferret evidently was not able to survive this 

“bottleneck’ in prairie dog numbers (Belitsky 1993 in AZGFD 2001) 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

410

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Since black-footed ferrets have been extirpated from the Coconino NF and there are no plans for 

reintroductions, there will be no effects to the ferret from implementation of any of the 

alternatives. If black-footed ferrets are reintroduced sometime in the future, a Biological 

Assessment will be completed and consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service will occur.

Mexican Gray Wolf 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The last reported wolf from northern Arizona was trapped in 1942, either on the forest or nearby 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in 

Arizona and New Mexico, beginning in 1998. The final rule for establishment of a nonessential 

experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1998b) designated primary recovery zones, secondary zones, and an 

experimental population area (EPA). All of the Coconino NF south of Interstate 40 is within the 

experimental population area, but outside the recovery zones. Under the final rule, wolves will 

only be reestablished in the recovery zones and will not be allowed to establish territories on 

public lands wholly outside the designated recovery areas. Wolves that occasionally make forays 

onto public lands outside the nonessential experimental population area are fully protected under 

the Endangered Species Act. Wolves have ventured on the forest at least twice, once in 2000 and 

once in 2001, but did not remain. 

Habitat

Mexican gray wolves probably occupied forested habitats above the Mogollon Rim and around 

the San Francisco Peaks. They are not associated with desert habitats and do not have specific 

vegetative habitat requirements

Risk Factors

Prey and water availability are probably the most important determinants in habitat use by 

wolves. They primarily feed on deer and elk, which are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. They are primarily influenced by reintroduction and management activities on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Environmental Consequences

Table 71 summarizes the viability analysis for Mexican gray wolf. 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 IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

411

Table 71. Analysis summary for the Mexican gray wolf

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

Mexican gray wolf 

(Experimental nonessential, Endangered) 

Endemic

MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward

M Good, slowly

toward

M

F Rank = FN* 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 at short 

term then fair, 

away

Short term: L

Long term: M 

Good, toward L 

PJG Fair, toward at 

short term 

then away at 

long term

L-M Low and high 

objectives: 

Fair, toward at 

short term then 

slowly away at 

long term

L-M

PJES Fair, away L-M Fair, away L-M

PJW Good, static L Good, static L

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 

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: H

Fair, static M

SF Fair, toward H Fair, toward H
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

412

Management Effect All habitats except SF = 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.

* 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. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

Table 71 shows that under alternative A, Montane Willow Riparian Forest would remain in good 

condition with a trend that is static or slowly toward desired conditions, except in the Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code HUC where it would be trending toward. 

Great Basin Grassland ERU would remain in good condition and continue 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, this 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. 

The Pinyon Juniper with Grass ERU 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

413

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. 

Pinyon Juniper Woodlands would remain in good condition with a static trend. 

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. 

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 relative to desired 

conditions 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.

Spruce-Fir would remain in fair condition with a trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 71, the likelihood that Mexican gray wolf would be limited by the quality of its 

habitat on the forest is low to high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Mexican gray wolf’s F Rank of FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate, except the Upper Clear 

Creek 5th code HUC is high), Great Basin Grassland (low in the short term, moderate in the long 

term), Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low in the short term, moderate in the long term), Pinyon 

Juniper with Grass (low-moderate), Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate), Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland (low), 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), Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire (moderate in short term and high in 

the long term), and Spruce-Fir (high) (table 9). 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 coarse 

filter habitats associated with Mexican gray wolf. This 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 Montane 

Willow Riparian Forest, this rating is primarily because alternative A does not distinguish 

between the three different riparian forest types differentiated in alternative B (modified) and 

lacks plan components relative to composition, structure, and function. Alternative A would 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

414

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 65-2, 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 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). 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 nonfunctional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

For Great Basin Grassland and Montane/Subalpine Grassland, this rating is because alternative A 

lacks plan language for the different grassland types and is outdated; for example, there is an 

emphasis on forage species rather 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). 

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland, 

this rating is because alternative A does not distinguish between the three pinyon juniper types 

that 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 seedbearing pinyon trees would not be equitably distributed across the landscape. 

For Ponderosa Pine ERU, this rating is because much of the plan language is outdated; however, 

some of it is positive. The plan direction emphasizes uneven-aged structure and canopy cover 

retention as well as snag, 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). 

For the Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire ERUs, this 

rating is primarily because alternative A does not distinguish between these two mixed conifer 

types whose composition and structure can differ because they have different fire regimes. 

Consequently management direction for these two ERUs is unclear. 

The management effect for Spruce-Fir under alternative A is 4, which suggests that a decline in 

habitat quality could occur as a result of management or lack of management that result from plan 

components. Alternative A lacks plan components specific to Spruce-Fir and existing plan 

components make it difficult to implement fire treatments in wilderness, which overlaps the 

majority of Spruce-Fir vegetation on the forest. This alternative also lacks plan components that 

would contribute to the maintenance or sustainability of Spruce-Fir. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

415

Plan components in this alternative would support habitat for Mexican gray wolves and their 

prey. Plan components emphasize management and cooperation for recovery of listed species, the 

reintroduction of extirpated species in accordance with recovery plans (1987 Plan, pages 22-1, 

64), and the management of habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish (1987 

Plan, page 22-1). Management for wolves is essentially management for the habitat of their prey, 

and ungulate populations are most productive in ecosystems that contain a variety of forest 

successional stages (Groebner et al. 1995). Management activities that may benefit prey include 

water development and vegetation management by using prescribed fire, managed wildfire, 

timber harvest, and seeding and planting of desired vegetation according to the recovery plan 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a). Alternative A has standards and guidelines to establish 

and maintain stand diversity through timber harvest to provide suitable habitat for wildlife while 

maintaining or enhancing timber production and age class distribution (p. 70, par 6), to use 

prescribed fire to improve wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, pages 92 to 96). There are also forestwide 

standards and guidelines that provide direction for big game winter range management, 

management of forage for wildlife, and for improvements such as water developments (1987 

Plan, pages 64 to 66). 

The 1987 plan emphasizes management and cooperation for recovery of listed species and 

reintroduction of extirpated species. Forestwide goals and objectives are to cooperate with the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department on proposals to reintroduce species (1987 Plan, page 22-1). 

Forestwide standards and guidelines call for reintroducing species in accordance with recovery 

plans (1987 Plan, page 64). 

Management for wolves is essentially management for their prey. Habitat type and condition is 

only important for wolves in its ability to support prey, and ungulate populations are most 

productive in ecosystems that contain a variety of forest successional stages (Groebner et al. 

1995). The Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1982b) lists management activities 

that may benefit prey, such as water development and vegetative management, by using 

prescribed fire, managed wildfire, timber harvest, and seeding and planting of desired vegetation. 

The 1987 Plan goals and objectives for wildlife are to manage habitat to maintain viable 

populations of wildlife and fish (1987 Plan, page 22-1). The 1987 Plan has standards and 

guidelines to establish and maintain stand diversity through timber harvest to provide suitable 

habitat for wildlife while maintaining or enhancing timber production and age class distribution 

(1987 Plan, page 70). Prescribed fire is another way to meet resource objectives and to improve 

wildlife habitat (1987 Plan, pages 92 to 96). Specifically for game species, forestwide standards 

and guidelines provide direction for big game winter range management, management of forage 

for wildlife, and for improvements such as water developments (1987 Plan, pages 64 to 66).

Alternative B (modified)

Table 71 shows that under alternative B (modified), Montane Willow Riparian Forest would be in 

good condition and trending slowly toward desired conditions, except in the Upper Clear Creek 

5th code HUC where it would be trending toward desired conditions at a faster rate than 

alternative A. 

Great Basin Grasslands ERU would be in good condition (like alternative A), but the trend would 

improve to static. The condition and trend of Montane/Subalpine Grasslands ERU would improve 

to good with a trend toward desired conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

416

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 and 2) are not sufficient to 

offset the negative effects of excess regeneration and closing canopies. 

Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub ERU would remain in fair condition, but would trend away from 

desired conditions, like alternative A. Like alternative A, Pinyon Juniper Woodland would remain 

in good condition with a static trend. 

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, 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 become static relative to desired conditions 

in the long term. Under the high treatment objectives (15,000 mechanical, 8,000 prescribed fire), 

Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire ERU would improve to good condition and initially trend 

toward desired conditions, but then become static 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. 

Spruce-Fir would remain in fair condition with a trend toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 71, the likelihood that Mexican gray wolf would be limited by the quality of its 

habitat on the forest is low to high, depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were derived by 

combining the Mexican gray wolf’s F Rank of FN with the likelihood of habitat limitation 

variables for each ERU: Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Great Basin Grassland

(low), Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (low), Pinyon Juniper with Grass (low-moderate), Pinyon 

Juniper Evergreen Shrub (low-moderate), Pinyon Juniper Woodland (low), 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), and Spruce-Fir (high) (table 9). 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 Mexican gray wolf. This means that plan components in alternative 

B maintain or improve habitat quality by maintaining or improving protection and management 

for most habitat and habitat element occurrences in the plan area. For 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-RipaType-G-1 to 4). In addition, 

riparian functional condition would improve faster than alternative A, especially along the Verde 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

417

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-RipTypeDC-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). 

For Great Basin Grasslands and Montane/Subalpine Grasslands, this rating is because alternatives 

B (modified), C, and D distinguish between the different grassland types and has additional 

language to protect this ERU that is not present in alternative A: Prescribed fires and wildfires 

managed for resource objectives should not be used on areas with clayey soils until natural 

vegetative ground cover is near potential (FW-TerrERU-Grass-G-1); this would promote 

satisfactory and functional soils. There is also an objective to restore/enhance between 10,800 and 

12,400 acres of this ERU every 10-year period during the life of the plan (FW-TerrERU-Grass-O2).

For Pinyon Juniper with Grass, Pinyon Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Pinyon Juniper Woodland, 

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-5-9; G-1, 2, 3, 5). There is 

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.

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 and 13). 

For Mixed Conifer with Frequent Fire and Mixed Conifer with Infrequent Fire, this rating is 

primarily because alternative A does not distinguish between these two mixed conifer types 

whose composition and structure can differ because they have different fire regimes. 

Consequently management direction for these two ERUs is unclear. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

418

For Spruce-Fir, this rating is because these alternatives have plan components specific to SpruceFir and existing plan components facilitate fire treatments in wilderness, which overlaps the 

majority of Spruce-Fir vegetation on the forest. 

All of the desired conditions for the forested ERUs aspire to move habitats toward reference 

conditions (see the “Vegetation and Fire” section in chapter 2 of the proposed revised plan). 

Guidance under the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants emphasizes thriving wildlife populations 

supported by the diversity, quantity, quality, and capability of habitats; dispersal and migration of 

wildlife so they can meet their life history requirements (FW-WFP-DC-1 to 9; FW-WFP-O-1, 3; 

FW-WFP-S-1; FW-WFP-G-1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11); and guidance for road management also 

emphasizes habitat connectivity and minimization of disturbance impacts to wildlife (FWRdsFac-DC-1, 4; FW-RdsFac-G-1, 2, 5). 

One of the three recommended wilderness areas (Davey’s) is in the Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area (MWEPA) identified in the 2015 Final Rule on the endangered status of this 

species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b). This recommended wilderness area would 

provide additional habitat (1,739 acres) where disturbance from motorized vehicles is minimized 

by limiting motorized use to administrative and permitted uses to maintain the area’s wilderness 

character (SA-Rwild-G-3). 

Although the Mexican gray wolf does not currently occupy the forest, the revised regulations for 

managing the nonessential experimental population within the MWEPA support the potential for 

wolves to naturally disperse onto the forest as populations increase in its original experimental 

population area. The revised rule also allows for translocations of wolves onto the forest (within 

the MWEPA), first only east of Highway 87 on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District, and could also 

be expanded farther west later on.

The conservation agreement (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010) identifies large area size, 

adequate prey, and security from human exploitation as the three basic ecological needs of the 

Mexican gray wolf. Land adjustments are likely under the LRMP, and can include acquisition or 

disposal. Plan components provide direction that is expected to consider listed species in future 

adjustments and the acreage of the forest is not expected to change significantly. 

Where Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in Arizona and New Mexico, prey does not 

appear to be limiting (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Reintroduced wolves show a strong 

preference for elk (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015b). While mule deer populations may not 

be doing as well, elk populations on the forest, including along the Mogollon Rim, are relatively 

abundant. The implementation of the plan can influence ungulate prey populations both positively 

and negatively through impacts to habitat and through state hunting regulations. Overall, by 

striving toward desired conditions, the LRMP is expected to maintain prey population habitat. 

Where their ranges overlap, wolves are known to prey on domestic livestock. Livestock grazing 

can be compatible with managing Mexican wolf populations, but when depredations occur, it can 

lead to lethal removal of wolves, or permanent removal from the population. 

Contact with humans can result in permanent removal or mortality of Mexican gray wolves. 

Illegal shooting is the greatest source of Mexican gray wolf mortality. Collisions with vehicles 

also results in mortality. While illegal shooting is not directly in Forest Service control, 

management of roads that provide access to areas wolves inhabit can influence the potential for 

illegal shooting and vehicle collisions. The LRMP provides management guidance that can limit 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

419

the potential for intrusions into wolf areas in the roads program, and guidance for wildernesses 

and special areas.

Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to alternative B (modified) in most aspects; however, there are some 

important differences. This alternative proposes a total of 13 wilderness areas (including the ones 

discussed in alternative B (modified)). Of the 13, 11 are in the MWEPA and would provide 

additional habitat. This would provide 84,763 acres of habitat with reduced disturbance from 

motorized use and activities in order to maintain the area’s wilderness character (SA-Rwild-G-3). 

The other two recommended wilderness areas (Strawberry Crater and Abineau) are north of 

Interstate 40 and outside of the MWEPA.

Alternative C proposes eight management areas that emphasize reduced human-related 

disturbance, wildlife, and restoring habitat using establishment of natural fire regimes and 

reduction of road densities. The Upper Clear Creek watershed along the Mogollon Rim is the 

closest forest habitat to the western edge of the Blue Range Recovery Area. There are five 

management areas in the Upper Clear Creek watershed including East Clear, Hospital Ridge, 

Knoll Lake, Limestone Pasture, and Second Chance, and all eight are within the Mexican gray 

wolf experimental population area. Guidelines for these management areas would reduce 

disturbance associated with recreation and public motorized access compared to alternative A or 

B (modified). This would positively impact wolves that wander outside of recovery zones by 

reducing disturbance impacts from recreational and motorized uses.

Although the findings do not differ, alternative C is more favorable to recovery of wolves on the 

forest through guidance contained within several MAs that emphasizes habitat for ungulate prey 

species, especially within the area east of Highway 87. Wolves are most likely to naturally 

disperse into and occupy this part of the forest first, because it is closest to the reintroduced 

population. Additionally, translocations of wolves are allowed into this area. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to alternative B (modified) in most aspects; however, there are some 

important differences. Alternative D does not recommend 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. 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. The designation of additional wilderness areas in alternatives B (modified) and 

alternative C would make them slightly more beneficial to Mexican gray wolf. 

Alternative D adjusts scenic resources direction to allow for expansion along two powerline 

corridors. One corridor is approximately 21 miles between Sycamore and Red Rock-Secret 

Mountain wildernesses, and the other is approximately 11 miles along State Highway 87. Both 

powerline corridors occur within the MWEPA on the forest. The corridor along Highway 87 is 

adjacent to the area where wolves currently could be translocated to, along with being allowed to 

naturally disperse and occupy. Additional development could cause disturbance to wolves if 

activities occur during the denning season. But the limited extent of the corridors minimizes the 

potential effect.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

420

Guidance in alternative D is similar to alternatives A, B (modified), and C in supporting reintroduction activities and providing diverse habitats that can support prey habitat. Overall, not 

adding any new wilderness areas or adding MAs that emphasize prey species habitat makes the 

effects of this alternative similar for wolves to alternative A. 

Findings

All alternatives are “not likely to jeopardize” the continued existence of Mexican gray wolves 

because all alternatives support reintroduction activities and provide diverse habitats that can 

support prey habitat. The final rule states that wolves are not allowed to establish territories 

outside of recovery zones. By definition, a nonessential experimental population is not essential 

to the continued existence of the species, therefore, none of the alternatives could lead to a 

jeopardy determination for the species.

Threatened and Endangered: Plants

Arizona Cliffrose

Arizona cliffrose was listed as Endangered in 1984 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). The 

Recovery Plan for the species was prepared in 1995 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

Arizona cliffrose is a long-lived shrub, endemic to the Verde Formation, which is a white Tertiary 

(Miocene and Pliocene) limestone lakebed deposit that is high in lithium, nitrates, and 

magnesium (Anderson 1996; AZGFD 2001). Arizona cliffrose occurs in four disjunct populations 

spread across an area of approximately 200 miles in central Arizona. Population areas include 

Burro Creek in Mohave and Yavapai counties, Cottonwood in Yavapai County, Horseshoe Lake 

in Maricopa and Yavapai counties, and near Bylas in Graham County (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1995).There are four recovery units for Arizona cliffrose. These include the Cottonwood, 

Burro Creek, Bylas and Horseshoe Lake areas. The Cottonwood Recovery Unit is the only one 

within the boundary of the Coconino National Forest and is the largest of the four units covering 

about 1,000 acres. The Recovery Unit occurs on the Coconino National Forest, adjacent state and 

county land with some habitat and plants on private lands. Most of the population is on the 

Coconino National Forest, with the majority of plants occurring in the Verde Valley Botanical 

Area, Dead Horse Ranch State Park and adjacent forest, State and private lands. The Cottonwood 

Recovery Unit supports a relatively large number of established seedlings. Recruitment rates to 

maintain viable populations of Arizona cliffrose are not well documented (USDA Forest Service 

2004). Recovery actions must be fulfilled in all four units to reach the goal of the Recovery Plan. 

The goal is to downgrade species to “threatened.” 

Habitat

Arizona cliffrose is restricted to nutrient-deficient calcareous soils of the Verde Formation soils, 

which are arid soft ancient lakebed soils that have a high level of pH, high amounts of calcium, 

and erode easily. The Verde Formation soil type defines a large portion of the plant life in the 

Verde Valley area. The harsh soils that support Arizona cliffrose serve an important function in 

excluding more common species from the habitat occupied by Arizona cliffrose (Anderson 1996) 

as well as other endemic species. Soil moisture during wet periods aids in recruitment of young 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

421

Arizona cliffrose plants (Maschinski et al. 2006). This soil type occupies about 70 percent of the 

Desert Communities and about 53 percent of the Semi-desert Grassland ERU. The Verde 

Formation extends from the Cottonwood area across the forest to east of Camp Verde. The 

Cottonwood Recovery Unit population and its habitat are dissected by two high-use roads, U.S. 

Highway 89A and State Route 179, which have numerous weed infestations, and it is located near 

some Verde Valley communities with typical wildland-urban interface activities occurring in the 

surrounding areas. These habitats (Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs and the 

Verde Formation soil in those ERUs) are more fully evaluated in the Coarse Filter: Habitat 

section.

Critical habitat has not been established for Arizona cliffrose. 

Risk Factors

Landscape-level primary habitat threats are addressed in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section and 

summarized below: 

• Desert Communities is threatened by invasive plants, particularly exotic annual grasses, 

uncharacteristic fire and recreation. Invasive plants compete with native species for scarce 

moisture. If they become well established, they can cause a change in fire frequency or fire 

severity to which native species would not be adapted. The potential for uncharacteristic fire 

has increased due to the proximity to the growing communities in the Verde Valley and 

increased recreation. 

• Semi-desert Grasslands are fragmented due to human development. The current conditions in 

Semi-desert Grasslands are highly departed due to fragmentation and departure in 

composition and structure as a result of fire exclusion. Due in large part to fire exclusion, 

about 30 percent of the Semi-desert Grassland on the south end of the forest have become so 

shrub and tree invaded that they have likely undergone a vegetation type conversion with 

little potential to be restored to open native grassland condition (USDA Forest Service 

2009a). A few, widely distributed invasive exotic plant species are present, including red 

brome. 

• The recovery plan for this species cites grazing and mining as threats to the Cottonwood 

population. The increase in recreational use in the Verde Valley Area has led to increased 

threats to Arizona cliffrose and its habitat. Mountain biking on the Lime Kiln Trail has 

impacted the soil and crushed some cliffrose plants in the Verde Valley Botanical Area. 

Other threats include: roads construction and maintenance, utility corridors, and land exchanges 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Construction and maintenance of roads and utility 

corridors could decrease the amount of habitat, change hydrology, contribute to erosion, and 

introduce invasive weeds. Land exchanges from Federal ownership to other entities could 

contribute to urbanization or other actions causing habitat loss or degradation, and would be 

contradictory to plan direction in all alternatives and the Recovery Plan. 

The effects of roads, utility lines, and livestock grazing on Forest Service controlled lands within 

the Cottonwood Recovery Unit have been mitigated by past management actions. For more 

information on these actions refer to the Biological Opinion for State Route 89A Cottonwood to 

Sedona Construction Segment 2 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996), Mingus Avenue Bypass 

Project (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) Phase II powerline (USDA Forest Service 2008a), 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

422

Travel Management FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2011e), and Windmill West Biological 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2014b).

Threats from the expanding human population and resulting urbanization are not under Forest 

Service control, but are anticipated to continue into the future. 

There is no livestock grazing in the Verde Valley Botanical Area and South Gyberg pasture, which 

has most of the population. These areas were permanently removed from the Windmill West 

Allotment in 2014. Grazing still occurs in other pastures containing Arizona cliffrose in the 

allotment but these areas have been brought into compliance for grazing outlined in the Recovery 

Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Although the Recovery Plan cites mining as a threat to Arizona cliffrose, most mining and 

exploration has been in the Burro Creek and Horseshoe Lake populations, which are outside the 

Coconino NF. The Cottonwood Recovery Unit has low potential and mining is unlikely to occur 

there (see Mineral Resources in volume 1 of this FEIS). 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of this analysis includes Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs, and 

the Verde Formation soil type in each of those ERUs. The previous coarse filter section compares 

the alternatives in regards to threats to Desert Communities, Semi-desert Grasslands, the Verde 

Formation, and overall habitat for Arizona cliffrose. The analysis below focuses on those risk 

factors and program areas that would be most consequential in terms of maintaining viability for 

Arizona cliffrose.

Table 72 summarizes the viability analysis for Arizona cliffrose. 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 72. Analysis summary for Arizona cliffrose

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

D

Species, status 

and F Rank

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 cliffrose 

(Endangered, 

Narrow Endemic)

DC Poor, away VH Poor, away VH 

F Rank = F1 SDG Poor, away VH Poor, slightly 

toward

VH 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

423

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

D

Species, status 

and F Rank

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

Verde Formation 

soil in DC

Fair, static H Fair, static H 

Verde Formation 

soil in SDG

Poor, slowly 

toward

VH Poor, toward VH 

Management Effect DC, Verde Formation in DC,

SDG, and Verde Formation 

in SDG = 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. 

Note: 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 support managing for viable self-sustaining populations of 

special status species, contributing to the survival and recovery of listed species, and allowing for 

the repatriation of extirpated species (1987 Plan, page 22-2; FW-WFP-DC 1, 2). All alternatives 

have a standard such that direction for species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate take precedence over direction for species not listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as 

well as direction to comply with approved recovery plans (1987 Plan, page 64; FW-WFP-S-1, 

FW-WFP-G-1, 2). 

All alternatives would manage botanical areas to protect their unique qualities (1987 Plan, pages 

25, 79, 195; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5, 6). The Verde Valley Botanical Area is managed to preserve 

a unique limestone-dependent vegetative community containing Arizona cliffrose (1987 Plan, 

page 195; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-5). 

Mining was identified as a threat in the Recovery Plan. Alternative A provides direction to seek 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in special areas including the Verde Valley Botanical 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

424

Area (1987 Plan, pages 86, 196). Mining is addressed in Alternatives B (modified), C and D 

through the regulation of surface occupancy. A guideline provides for no surface occupancy or 

mineral leasing in areas such as the Verde Valley Botanical Area and for endangered species 

including Arizona cliffrose (FW-Minerals-G-3). This guidance will help protect all Arizona 

cliffrose plants including those not occurring within the boundaries of the Verde Valley Botanical 

Area. This guidance is strengthened by Forest Service Manual direction for mineral management 

(FSM 2761.03). The manual also provides alternatives to mineral withdrawal including using the 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act (1973). Refer to FSM 2761.4 for additional 

information. 

Livestock grazing was identified as threat to Arizona cliffrose in the Recovery Plan (1995a). All 

alternatives contain guidance for livestock grazing. All alternatives have plan components that 

direct allotment management plans to have provisions that protect the uniqueness and ecological 

condition of special areas such as the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1987 Plan, page 195; SARNABotGeo-G-4). Particularly beneficial plan components include the following;

• A standard in the current forest plan that requires forage use by grazing ungulates be 

maintained at or above a condition that assures recovery and continued existence of 

threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, page 66-1). 

• Desired conditions in the section on Wildlife, Fish, and Plants that promote habitat 

conditions that contribute to the survival and recovery of listed species and a guideline 

that requires that habitat management objectives and species protection measures from 

approved recovery plans should be applied to activities within federally listed species 

habitat to promote recovery of the species (FW-WFP-DC-2, FW-WFP-G-1). 

• A guideline in the section on Livestock Grazing that requires livestock grazing to be 

managed to meet, or move toward, the desired conditions for forest resources such as 

soil, water, vegetation, and species (FW-Graz-G-2). 

In addition, the Recovery Plan contains a series of recovery actions to regulate grazing. These 

actions must be addressed during grazing planning and implementation to comply with the 

Recovery Plan. 

All alternatives specify that fire suppression tactics should have minimal damage to special areas 

(1987 Plan, page 196; SA-RNABotGeo-G-3). Fire line construction could damage or kill 

individual plants, increase the calcium content of the soil (making it less suitable for cliffrose), or 

cause accelerated soil erosion. These plan components would contribute to the viability of this 

species by minimizing damage to habitat and individual plants from fire suppression activities. 

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region 

was prepared in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The determination of effect for Arizona 

cliffrose was “may affect and likely to adversely affect the Arizona cliffrose.” This finding was 

based on the lack of specific protection measures, specifically for the Arizona cliffrose, in the 

Coconino and Tonto National Forest plans, specifically for the Cottonwood population where the 

document mentioned a wide variety of activities. The Biological Opinion concurred with the 

finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). A similar biological assessment was prepared in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

425

2011 and again contained a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” finding. There had been no 

significant changes in LMRP or significant scientific information to warrant a change in the 

finding (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The Biological Opinion concurred with the finding (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d). 

Since then, there have been two amendments to the current plan. One amendment addresses 

cultural resources and has no significant effect on the management of Arizona cliffrose. The 

second incorporates the direction of the Travel Management EIS (2012) into the current plan. The 

decision closed cross-country motorized travel across the forest, limiting vehicles to designated 

roadways (USDA Forest Service 2011g). This decision was consistent with the already existing 

off road vehicle closure in Management Area 17 (Special Areas). The MA 17 closure includes the 

Verde Valley Botanical Area. This decision also closed MA 11 (Verde Valley) to off-road vehicle 

travel. This provides a higher level of protection for the portion of the Arizona cliffrose 

population outside of the Verde Valley Botanical Area than was afforded by the LMRP before the 

Travel Management decision. The Biological Assessment and the associated amendment for

Travel Management determined that the effect for Arizona cliffrose was “may affect but is not 

likely to adversely affect Arizona cliffrose or its habitat” (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m). 

This finding was based on the generally beneficial effects to the species by reducing the risks of 

negative impacts from motorized vehicles and strengthening existing closures within and near the 

Verde Valley Botanical Area and nearby habitat. The TMR decision officially closed a series of 

roads under Forest Service control that were previously designated as “high clearance” but were 

not in use. The Biological Opinion concurred with this finding (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2012d). 

Since then, there have been no significant changes in LRMP or significant scientific information 

to warrant a change in the finding

Viability

Table 72 shows that under alternative A, Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland would 

remain in poor condition and trend away from desired conditions. Alternative A has no specific 

desired conditions for Desert Communities. Plan direction focuses on watershed condition, range 

management, and recreation. 

The increased abundance and distribution of non-native invasive grasses in the Desert 

Communities ERU increases the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires in a plant community not 

adapted to wildfire. Fragmentation of the Semi-desert Grasslands due to urbanization and past 

land use has contributed to departure from the historic fire regime. The frequent low-intensity 

fires that formed and maintained the community structure of the ERU, limiting the numbers and 

densities of trees and shrubs are no longer able to burn across the landscape. These departures are 

likely to continue into the future. 

The likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the Arizona cliffrose is 

very high for Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland, and high to very high for the Verde 

Formation. These likelihoods were derived by combining Arizona cliffrose’s F Rank of F1 with 

the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Desert Communities (high), Semidesert Grasslands (high), Verde Formation in Desert Communities (moderate), and Verde 

Formation in Semi-desert Grasslands (high) (table 9). Low to moderate ratings are considered to 

be within the natural range of fluctuations for the habitat. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

426

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 Desert 

Communities, Verde Formation in Desert Communities, and Verde Formation in Semi-desert 

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 this species than the other alternatives. This is primarily because alternative A

provides little to no direction on specific desired conditions for these two ERUs and little explicit 

direction for the Verde Formation. 

The management effect is classified as a 3 for Semi-desert Grassland, 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 guidance for the 

different grassland types, which have different species compositions and structure.

Alternative A is the most permissive of the alternatives and would not preclude dispersed 

recreation or off-trail use in botanical areas. Bicycle use has increased in the Verde Valley 

Botanical Area over time. Increased use in general increases the risk to plants growing along the 

trails. Alternative A has guidance that would protect cliffrose by regulating bicycling if conflicts 

are identified, but this would require conflicts to occur before preventative action is taken (1987 

Plan, page 59). 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for Arizona cliffrose was 

“may affect, likely to adversely affect.” Although beneficial effects are expected from adoption of 

plan guidance, adverse effects could still occur, primarily from recreation, non-native grass 

expansion, and livestock grazing. Urbanization was identified as a threat in the Recovery Plan 

and in the Cottonwood area will continue, but it and its associated effects are not under Forest 

Service control.

The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their draft Biological and 

Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). No 

incidental take was assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided two discretionary 

conservation recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement 

recovery plans, or develop information. 

Viability 

Table 72 shows that under alternative B (modified), Desert Communities would remain in poor 

condition with a trend away from desired conditions, 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. Increased fragmentation from urbanization would be expected to continue. 

The condition of Verde Formation soil in the Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands 

ERUs would be the same as alternative A (fair and poor, respectively), but there would be slight 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

427

improvements in the trend (slowly toward and toward desired conditions, respectively) under 

alternative B (modified). These improved trends would be a result of integrated protection of 

sensitive resources from the impacts of motorized and non-motorized recreation; rehabilitation of 

unauthorized trails so as to prevent accelerated erosion; and potential restrictions on 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, FWRec-Trails-DC-3, FW-Rec-Trails-DC-4, FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11, FW-Rec-Trails-G-1, FW-RecTrails-G-3). 

Table 72 shows that the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

Arizona cliffrose is very high for Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grassland ERUs and for 

Verde Formation soil in the Semi-desert Grassland ERU, and high for Verde Formation soil in the 

Desert Communities ERU. These likelihoods were derived by combining the Arizona cliffrose’s F 

Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Desert Communities 

(high), Semi-desert Grasslands (moderate), Verde Formation in soil Desert Communities

(moderate), Verde Formation soil in Semi-desert Grasslands (high) (table 9). 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 Desert Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands ERUs, 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-TerrERUGrass-DC-1, 8), compared to alternative A which has a more forage-based approach. 

Soil is a limiting factor for plant communities on the Verde Formation soil type (Anderson 1996; 

AZGFD 2001). The soils of the Verde Formation are generally not suited to intensive disturbance. 

For Verde Formation soil, there are no specific components in the Desert Communities or Semidesert Grasslands ERUs. However, the management effect rating is a 2 for Verde Formation 

because 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). 

Threats to Arizona cliffrose and its habitat on lands under Forest Service control within the 

Cottonwood Recovery Unit, including roads, utility line construction, and livestock grazing, have 

been addressed through forest actions or change in management (as described under Risk Factors)

but are addressed and strengthened in alternative B (modified) (FW-Graz-DC-2, 5, FW-SpecUseDC-2, FW-RdsFac-DC-3, FW-RdsFac-G-3, FW-SpecUse-G-1, FW-SpecUse-G-10). 

This alternative would provide protection for the plant community and soil components essential

to the Arizona cliffrose. Alternative B (modified) provides desired conditions for the Desert 

Communities and Semi-desert Grasslands ERUs that are largely absent from alternative A. 

Collectively, these address community conditions, natural processes, and habitat components 

absent from alternative A. The guidance for All Ecosystems, Desert Communities, and Semi-
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

428

desert Grasslands address the conditions in the ERUs, and therefore, benefit the species 

inhabiting them, including Arizona cliffrose. Forestwide guidance for soils recognizes the need to 

assure proper soil function of all soil types across the forest including the specialized soils such as 

the Verde Formation. 

The plan components for all ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1 to 4) and All Terrestrial ERUs (FWTerrERU-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. 

Additional beneficial components can be found in the Desert Communities and Semi-desert 

Grasslands ERU sections.

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-G-10). 

A desired condition for the Desert Communities ERU (FW-TerrERU-DC-DC-2) focuses on 

preserving the inherently sparse vegetation that is characteristic of Desert Communities including 

native shrubs, cacti, forbs and grasses in various seral stages and fine- and mid-scales as they 

naturally occur. The vegetation community may vary considerably depending on site capability 

(as determined by TEUI or other appropriate ecological classification system) and climate, 

topography, soils, and smaller scale disturbances. These varying scales are important for all 

plants, especially rare plants including Arizona cliffrose. Arizona cliffrose is tied to the Verde 

Formation, which is limited to specific soil units. 

A portion of the occurrences of Arizona cliffrose is within the Semi-desert Grassland ERU. 

Desired conditions support soil and plant community structure at a variety of scales, providing the 

ability for native plants to regenerate successfully, depending on climatic conditions (FWTerrERU-Grass-DC-1) and addressing the need for native understory vegetation to support the 

frequent surface fires that were part of the historic fire regime (FW-TerrERU-Grass-DC-2). This 

desired condition addresses non-native species, stating that they should not facilitate the spread, 

intensity, or severity of uncharacteristic fire. 

With the growing population of the Verde Valley, recreation on National Forest System lands has 

also increased. Forestwide direction for recreation 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, 2, FW-RecTrails-DC-3, 4, 11, FW-Rec-Trails-G-3). 

Land exchange is another potential threat for this species. Guidelines in alternative B (modified) 

require that the forest consider habitat for threatened or endangered species when considering 

acquiring other lands and require that lands that leave forest ownership do not contain unique 

ecological resources (FW-LndAdj-G-1, 2). 

In this alternative, mechanized use in the Verde Valley Botanical Area would not be suitable 

except on designated trails (Chapter 4 of the draft Revised Plan). Bicycle use on trails within the 

Botanical Area is currently on-going and this language would strengthen the plan direction while 

still allowing an existing use (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-11) and addressing potential impacts from users 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

429

leaving the established treads. A guideline is included to support the need to balance conflicts 

between recreational use and other resources (FW-Rec-All-G-2) including the soil components 

and Arizona cliffrose plants along the trails. This alternative would provide better protection for 

Arizona cliffrose and its habitat than alternative A, which does not include a recreation or 

transportation suitability determination for this botanical area. 

Additional information on the plan components related to Desert Communities and Semi-desert 

Grassland ERUs and the Verde Formation soil in these ERUS is discussed further the Coarse 

Filter: Habitat section by ERU.

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) with a few meaningful exceptions. Alternative C would determine that mechanized 

travel is not suitable in research natural areas, botanical areas, and geological areas. This would 

be the most restrictive of all alternatives, and would likely result in prohibiting bicycles within the 

Verde Valley Botanical Area. It would add an additional layer of protection for Arizona cliffrose 

plants and the fragile Verde Formation. It could remove bicycle use from 1.1 miles of the Lime 

Kiln Trail and from 1.4 miles of the 1.8-mile-long Bill Ensign Trail within the botanical area. 

These trails and others in the area currently provide longer distance loops for users accessing the 

trails from the Deadhorse Ranch State Park and similar areas. These connections would be 

removed for bicycle riders if this alternative is selected, but only after a decision is made to do so, 

based on project-level analysis. These areas and trails would remain an option for hikers and 

horseback riders. 

Alternative D

The effects to Arizona cliffrose from alternative D are the same as alternative B (modified). 

Findings

Arizona cliffrose is vulnerable to perturbations in the environment because of small population 

sizes and localized habitat due to unique and specific soil conditions. The reasons for these 

findings are described above as well as in the Coarse Filter: Habitat section on Desert 

Communities and Semi desert Grasslands. Implementation of plan components related to 

vegetation treatments, livestock grazing, recreation management, watershed management, 

wildlife, fish or rare plants management, or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have 

short-term effects, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of 

habitat and Arizona cliffrose populations on the Coconino NF. Although actions could be 

implemented under these alternatives that would result in impacts to individuals, all alternatives 

would result in contributing to the viability and persistence of the populations of this species 

because:

• Plan guidance in the Wildlife, Fish, and Plants section provides protections for this 

species by directing the forest to follow recovery plans and improve habitat to promote 

the recovery of species (1987 Plan, page 64; FW-WFP-DC-2, FW-WFP-G-1). This 

strengthens existing Federal law, policy, and Forest Service Manual direction; and 

• All alternatives maintain the unique qualities of the Verde Valley Botanical Area, which 

contains habitat for the majority of Arizona cliffrose. 

Alternative C would likely remove bicycle travel on trails within the Verde Valley Botanical Area 

over time, based on project-level decisions. This would reduce effects such as trail widening on 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

430

tight turns, specifically along the Lime Kiln Trail. Alternatives B (modified), C, and D would 

better maintain the viability of this species because plan components for the Desert Communities 

and Semi-desert Grasslands ERUs would contribute to the maintenance of habitat components 

needed to maintain Arizona cliffrose habitat and protect its population in the Verde Valley. These 

plan components are largely absent in alternative A.

San Francisco Peaks Ragwort

Affected Environment 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort was listed as threatened in 1983, and has designated critical habitat. 

The recovery plan for the species was prepared in 1987. 

Distribution

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is an endemic species occurring only on the San Francisco Peaks. 

The species has 213 acres of occupied habitat, which all occurs within the Kachina Peaks 

Wilderness with part of the population within the San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area 

(USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Habitat

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is restricted to portions of the Alpine Tundra (161 occupied acres) 

and-Fir (72 occupied acres) ERUs. This restricted distribution makes it especially vulnerable to 

perturbations and disturbance. Three broad habitats occur in the alpine tundra of the San 

Francisco Peaks: boulder field, fellfield-snow-bed communities, and fellfield (USDA Forest 

Service 1984). Large expanses of the alpine tundra consist of boulder fields and do not support 

vascular plants. San Francisco Peaks ragwort occurs only in the fellfields. There are only a few 

plant occurrences in the upper edges of the Spruce Fir ERU in small openings. Talus slopes are 

also important habitat features for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. It is a small clonal species that 

can also reproduce sexually by producing seeds. Frost action and soil gravitational movement 

break up the clones, producing independent plants. The total population of San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort is estimated at 100,000 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987) to 180,000 clones (Fowler 

and Sieg 2010) or 90,000 to 135,000 plants (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

The habitat is dissected by several heavily used trails, one of which leads to Humphrey’s Peak, 

the highest point in Arizona. The alpine tundra on the San Francisco Peaks has been closed to offtrail hiking since 1984. A portion of the habitat overlaps the Snowbowl Ski Area. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has been designated for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. Areas 

designated as critical habitat are the summits of Agassiz and Humphries Peaks and the 

surrounding slopes and alpine areas, San Francisco Peaks, Coconino National Forest, Coconino 

County, Arizona (Township 22 North, Range 7 East N 1⁄2 of the NW 1⁄4 of Section 5, Township 23 

North, Range 7 East, W 1⁄2 Section 32 and W 1⁄2 Section 29) covering approximately 720 acres. 

The primary constituent elements for San Francisco Peaks ragwort’s designated critical habitat 

are the loose cinder talus slopes of the San Francisco Peaks alpine tundra system. Unnatural 

disturbance from human activities and damage from hikers was the main concern during listing. 

Management of this area to reduce disturbance of the talus slopes is necessary to protect the 

species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). The components cited below that protect the 

species also protect the critical habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

431

Risk Factors

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. Avalanche 

abatement affects approximately 12 percent of the species’ habitat (Dexter 2007) and is controlled 

through the current special-use permit for the Arizona Snowbowl. 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is a narrow endemic whose distribution is limited to the San 

Francisco Peaks. This single location makes it more vulnerable to perturbations and extinction 

than more widespread species. Threats to the species include off-trail hiking and the expansion of 

the Snowbowl Ski Area, leading to higher visitor use in the habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2010). It is speculated that San Francisco Peaks ragwort numbers will decline and the 

species could possibly go extinct from climate change (Fowler and Sieg 2010). Climate change is 

a threat, especially to this species because there is no replacement habitat for it on the forest or 

within several hundred miles. 

Additional threats include those to the Alpine Tundra and Spruce-Fir ERUs. Additional 

information on the threats to these ERUs is available in the Coarse Filter: Habitat sections. There 

is some risk, although minor, of loss of individuals to fire in the upper portions of the Spruce-Fir 

ERU. These losses are difficult to mitigate due to the natural fire regime, which is infrequent but 

stand-replacing, and the presence of wilderness that restricts the options for fire suppression in 

these areas. Fire in the Alpine Tundra is unlikely. 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of this analysis includes Alpine Tundra and Spruce-Fir ERUs. The Coarse Filter: 

Habitat section compares the alternatives in regard to threats to Alpine Tundra and Spruce-Fir 

ERUs and overall habitat for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. The analysis below focuses on those 

risk factors and program areas that would be most consequential in terms of maintaining viability 

for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. 

Table 73 summarizes the viability analysis for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. 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

432

Table 73. Analysis summary for San Francisco Peaks ragwort

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

San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort 

(Threatened, 

Narrowly Endemic)

AT Good, away H Good, away H 

F Rank = F1* SF Fair, toward VH Fair, toward VH 

Talus 

Slopes

Good, static M Good, static M 

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. 

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.

Talus slopes = 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.

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, 

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

more information. 

Under all alternatives, management and guidance for San Francisco Peaks ragwort would be 

subject to consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and continue to follow the recovery 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

433

plan (1987 Plan, page 64-1; FW-WFP-G-1). All alternatives provide protections for this species 

by directing the forest to follow recovery plans and improve habitat to promote the recovery of 

species (1987 Plan, page 64; FW-WFP-DC-2, FW-WFP-G-1). 

All alternatives close the area above tree line to off-trail hiking during snow-free periods (1987 

Plan, pages 108, 110; SA-Wild-S-3). All alternatives also prohibit horse and pack stock (except 

for limited administrative use) on the Humphrey’s Trail and Weatherford Trail above Doyle 

Saddle and recreational livestock above tree line or in the watersheds draining into the Inner 

Basin (1987 Plan, page 108; MA-Peaks-S-1, 2, 3, MA-InBsn-S-1, SA-Wild-S-4). Camping would 

be prohibited above tree line under all alternatives (1987 Plan, page 108; SA-Wild-S-4). Use in 

the City of Flagstaff watershed (draining into Inner Basin) is limited to day use foot traffic under 

all alternatives, and the area may be closed if unacceptable damage occurs as determined by a 

degradation of water quality (1987 Plan, pages 108, 191; MA-InBsn-S-1, MA-InBsn-G-7, MAPeaks-S-1, 2). Collectively, this plan direction protects this species and its habitat by removing 

the ground-disturbing impacts associated with dispersed recreation. 

Grazing in Alpine Tundra and the upper slopes of Mixed Conifer forests is prohibited in all 

alternatives. The Alpine Tundra and upper Mixed Conifer/Spruce-Fir slopes within the Kachina 

Peaks Wilderness (areas above 9,500 feet elevation) were closed to grazing and were removed 

from inclusion in any allotment with the approval of the 1987 Plan (1987 Plan, page 110). 

Alternatives B (modified), C, and D identified these areas as unsuitable for grazing in Chapter 4 

of the revised plan (see table 12, Areas unsuitable for grazing on Coconino NF). Removing 

grazing also protects habitat from grazing-related surface disturbance and possible grazing of 

individual plants, promoting the survival and reproduction of the species. 

The San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area is common to all alternatives. The existing San 

Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area was established in 1931, and is an example of a 

bristlecone pine/tundra/old-growth spruce-fir community. It currently covers 1,010 acres, but 

would be expanded in alternatives B (modified), C, and D to include an additional 141 acres of 

alpine tundra habitat to the existing research natural area. Both the existing and expansion 

portions of the research natural area contain known occurrences of San Francisco Peaks ragwort. 

Research natural areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity 

for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on National Forest System 

lands. Research natural areas are managed to protect and maintain their uniqueness and ecological 

condition (1987 Plan, page 195; SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1, 2, 4). 

The research natural area and all known occurrences and habitat for San Francisco Peaks ragwort 

are completely within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness Area, so the more restrictive laws, 

regulations, and policies that apply to wilderness would be common to all alternatives (1987 Plan, 

pages 101, 108; SA-Wild-DC-1 to 11, SA-Wild-S-3, 5). Alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

expressly include desired conditions for wilderness to contribute to the preservation of San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort and its habitat by preserving the primitive integrity of wilderness while 

sustaining the ecosystems and ecological resources and addresses the natural processes and 

functions in the wilderness (SA-Wild-DC 1, 2) 

These restrictive management components reduce the risk of damage to habitat and individual 

plants by off trail activities.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

434

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the continued implementation of forest LRMPs across the region 

was prepared in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2004d). The determination of effect for San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort stated that the continued implementation of the LRMP was “may affect 

not likely to adversely affect” the San Francisco Peaks ragwort. This finding was based on the 

assumption that the population of San Francisco Peaks ragwort is stable, the integration of the 

Alpine Tundra Management Plan (1984), the area closure prohibiting off-trail hiking in the alpine 

tundra, and no livestock grazing in the habitat. The Biological Assessment stated that continuing 

to implement the LRMPs was not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for the San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort. The Biological Assessment supported this conclusion by citing the presence of 

wilderness, which provides an added layer of protection, as well as the area closure prohibiting 

off-trail hiking in the alpine tundra and no livestock grazing in the habitat. An additional 

protective measure, the expansion of the San Francisco Peaks Research Natural Area, was cited as 

a beneficial action for critical habitat, but the expansion was never completed. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their Biological Opinion (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2005a). Their findings were based on the conservation measures for the San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort, the area closure prohibiting off-trail hiking in the alpine tundra, and no 

livestock grazing in the habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the determination that 

the LRMP will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat of the San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort based on guidance that protects critical habitat, the area closure for hiking, and the 

closure of the alpine tundra and upper mixed conifer slopes to grazing and removal of these areas 

from any grazing allotment. 

The Southwestern Region prepared another biological assessment for the continued 

implementation of the forest LRMPs across the region in 2011. The BA contained “may affect not 

likely to adversely affect” findings for the species and critical habitat. There have been no 

significant changes in LRMP or significant scientific information to warrant a change in the 

finding (USDA Forest Service 2011f). The 2012 Biological Opinion concurred with the finding 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d).

Since 2011, there have been two amendments to the current plan; one addressing cultural 

resources and one incorporating the direction of the Travel Management Rule decision into the 

current plan. Neither of these apply to San Francisco Peaks ragwort. 

Since 2012, there have been no significant changes in LMRP or significant scientific information 

to warrant a change in the finding.

Table 73 shows that under alternative A, Alpine Tundra ERU would remain in good condition, but 

would trend away from desired conditions primarily due to climate change. Spruce-Fir ERU 

would remain in fair condition and trend toward desired conditions. Talus slopes would remain in 

good condition with a static trend. 

As shown in table 73, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining San Francisco Peaks ragwort’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of 

habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Alpine Tundra (moderate), Spruce-Fir (high), and talus 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

435

slopes (low) (table 9). 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. Although there are no specific components addressing alpine tundra 

in alternative A, provisions closing the area to off-trail hiking and grazing (1987 Plan, pages 108, 

110) and providing wilderness and watershed protection for the area. 

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 plan components 

specific to spruce-fir and existing plan components make it difficult to implement fire treatments 

in wilderness which overlaps the majority of spruce-fir vegetation on the forest. However, 

because plan components related to wilderness are generally protective, the fire return interval is 

only moderately departed, insect and disease activity is mainly within the historic range of 

variability, and few management activities have occurred, the spruce-fir portion of the habitat is 

still functional, See the section on Vegetation and Fire in volume 1 of the FEIS for detailed 

information. 

The management effect is classified as a 3 for talus slopes, 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 closes the area above tree line to hiking during snow-free 

periods, minimizing the effects of foot traffic. This in turn reduces the threat of soil displacement 

and rock movement on the steep slopes, protecting the critical habitat of San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort. 

Alternative A provides overarching plan direction for federally listed species to inventory, 

evaluate, and prepare recovery schedules for proposed, threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

plant species and provide appropriate law enforcement to protect habitat for listed species (1987 

Plan, page 64, 65). This species and its habitat are located entirely in the Kachina Peaks 

Wilderness. Alternative A includes direction to implement corrective measures such as wilderness 

permit system if overuse causes unacceptable resource damage (1987 Plan, page 107). Under this 

alternative, the San Francisco Peaks ragwort is to be managed by the direction present in its 

management plan and in accordance with the San Francisco Peaks Tundra Management Plan, 

which is incorporated into alternative A and into the Recovery Plan (1987 Plan, page 65). 

Management under these components would protect the species and its critical habitat. 

Alternative B (modified)

A Biological Assessment for the revision of the Coconino NF Land Management Plan was 

prepared in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the species and critical habitat. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding in their draft Biological and Conference 

Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

436

Table 73 shows that the condition and trend for the associated habitats would be the same under 

alternative B (modified) as alternative A. The Alpine Tundra ERU would remain in good 

condition and trend away from desired conditions. The Spruce-Fir ERU would remain in fair 

condition with a trend toward desired conditions, and talus slopes would remain in good 

condition with a static trend.

As shown in table 73, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for the 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is moderate to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining San Francisco Peaks ragwort’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of 

habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Alpine Tundra (moderate), Spruce-Fir (high), and talus 

slopes (low) (table 9). 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, 

Spruce-Fir, and talus slopes. 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 Alpine Tundra, the 

management effect of 2 is the same as alternative A because plan components in both alternatives 

address the off-trail hiking (SA-Wild-S-3), camping (SA-Wild-S-4), and recreational livestock 

use (MA-Peaks-S-1, 3, MA-InBSN-S-1, SA-Wild-S-4) that can cause ground disturbance and 

accelerated soil erosion in this small rare ERU and degrade the habitat for the San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort. 

For Spruce-Fir, this management effect rating is because this alternative has plan components 

specific to spruce-fir and the plan components in alternative A that made it difficult to implement 

fire treatments in wilderness have been removed. The majority of spruce-fir vegetation occurs 

within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. 

For talus slopes, the management effect rating of 2 is primarily because alternative B (modified) 

has plan components specifically for the unique ecosystem and structure associated with talus 

slopes, whereas there are few in alternative A. Plan components promote talus slopes that are 

generally undisturbed by human activities and that maintain specialized habitats for plants such as 

the San Francisco Peaks ragwort. In addition, a guideline states that projects and uses should 

maintain the integrity and function of talus slopes (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1, 7, FW-BioPhys-GeoG-1). These plan components would maintain and protect this component of ragwort habitat and 

promote the reproduction and survival of the species. 

Alternative B (modified) would maintain the persistence and contribute to the viability of San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort in a variety of ways. In addition to prohibiting off-trail hiking (SA-WildS-3), use of horse, pack, and recreational stock (MA-InBsn-S-1, MA-Peaks-S-1, 3, SA-Wild-S-4), 

and overnight camping (SA-Wild-S-4), this alternative would direct new route construction and 

other recreation activities to avoid San Francisco Peaks ragwort habitat and to minimize 

disturbance to it (SA-Wild-S-5). 

Talus slopes are part of the critical habitat and the primary constituent elements. Alternative B 

(modified) acknowledges the importance of talus slopes for the specialized habitats afforded by 

them (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-7) while providing direction to keep these and other biophysical 

features generally undisturbed by human activities (FW-BioPhys-Geo-DC-1). These desired 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

437

conditions add support to the Recovery Plan. The soils occupied by San Francisco Peak ragwort 

consist of loose volcanic soils on steep slopes. Alternative B (modified) provides forestwide 

guidance for the crucial habitat elements for San Francisco Peaks ragwort. The forestwide desired 

conditions for soil (FW-Soil-DC-1, 2) provide guidance for maintaining proper soil function and 

productivity within the capability of the site while providing nutrient cycling and water 

infiltration. 

Alternative B (modified) would expand the existing San Francisco Peaks RNA into the Alpine 

Tundra habitat, which would include a portion of the populations and designated critical habitat. 

This would offer additional protections to the plant and habitat because research natural areas are 

permanently protected and maintained in natural condition, so they may serve as experimental 

research controls and monitoring sites, and be used for education. Associated plan components 

would result in little disturbance or evidence of human activities (SA-RNABotGeo-DC-1, SARNABotGeo-S-1, 2, SA-RNABotGeo-G-1, 2). 

The Alpine Tundra ERU contains most of the known occurrences and habitat for San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort. Desired conditions that preserve the integrity of this ERU benefit those species 

that live within them. One of the desired conditions for this ERU addresses the attributes and 

processes that support ecological diversity and resiliency in the ERU (FW-TerrERU-AT-DC-1). 

Resiliency to disturbance will allow San Francisco Peaks ragwort to persist in its tundra habitat. 

Another desired condition for the Alpine Tundra ERU addresses the importance of providing for 

the unique high-elevation ecosystem present in the Alpine Tundra including the native species 

and narrow endemics that are present in the diverse habitats present in the tundra including the 

boulder fields, talus slopes, and high-elevation meadows that form specialized habitats in this 

harsh environment (FW-TerrERU-AT-DC-2). It especially addresses the presence of San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort, stating that Alpine Tundra should provide habitat for the San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort, a federally listed species. This desired condition will reinforce other plan direction 

and the Recovery Plan for the species. 

An Alpine Tundra ERU guideline addresses recreational activities, stating that these activities 

should be managed to maintain or improve ecological, attributes, processes and habitat for native 

biota (FW-TerrERU-AT-G-1). This guidance will strengthen the closure of the tundra area to 

cross-country hiking as well as providing guidance for activities such as trail maintenance in the 

Alpine Tundra ERU. Maintenance of existing trails is important. Well defined and maintained 

trails encourage people to remain on trails, while poorly maintained trails may contribute to more 

off-trail use and user created trails. Alternative B (modified) includes a desired condition for a 

system of well-marked and well-maintained sustainable trails (FW-Rec-Trails-DC-1). Three 

standards associated with Designated Wilderness regulate recreational uses in the Kachina Peaks 

Wilderness, specifically in the Alpine Tundra by limiting recreational activities to designated 

trails during snow-free periods (SA-Wild-S-3); prohibiting camping and livestock use above tree 

line (SA-Wild-S-4); and avoiding designated critical habitat, occupied habitat, and high density of 

plants during new route construction. (SA-Wild-S-5). 

Unlike alternative A, alternative B (modified) has a standard that would affect the Arizona 

Snowbowl permit area and ragwort habitat. The standard applies to unauthorized areas under 

special use permit that are impacted by authorized activities (in this case, avalanche abatement). 

The standard requires the permittee to rehabilitate the impacted area (FW-SpecUse-S-2). As 

mentioned previously, the special use permit for this area issued under a separate NEPA process.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

438

This could be beneficial for the species because it would restore habitat that was damaged by 

avalanche abatement activities. 

San Francisco Peaks ragwort plants occurring in Spruce-Fir habitat are in atypical habitat, 

occurring in small openings in the forest as compared to the open talus slope habitat occupied by 

plants in the Alpine Tundra ERU. The Spruce-Fir ERU can be subdivided into lower elevation 

(Spruce-Fir Mix) and higher elevation (Subalpine Spruce-Fir), each with differing fire regimes 

and subdominant species composition. The higher elevation subtype is bounded by Alpine Tundra 

ERU above about 11,500 feet. San Francisco Peaks ragwort occur on the higher elevation SpruceFir Forest. The area containing San Francisco Peaks ragwort is along the upper edge of the ERU 

where it meets the Alpine Tundra ERU. In the higher elevation subtype, high-severity fires occur 

very infrequently (Fire Regimes IV and V). Approximately 72 acres of the higher elevation 

Spruce-Fir ERU are occupied by San Francisco Peaks ragwort.

The frequent small disturbances within the Spruce Fir ERU that result in small patches provide 

the openings for San Francisco Peaks ragwort where it occurs in the upper elevations of its 

habitat. A Spruce-Fir desired condition benefits San Francisco Peaks ragwort by acknowledging 

the varying occurrences of groups and patches of habitat depending on disturbance, elevation, soil 

type, aspect, and site productivity (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-6). Another desired condition for 

Spruce-Fir ERU acknowledges that grasses, forbs (including San Francisco Peaks ragwort) and 

shrubs may comprise up to 100 percent of the vegetation in openings in the Spruce-Fir forest 

(FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-9). The Spruce-Fir ERU also contains a desired condition that focuses on 

fine scale features less than 10 acres and acknowledges the importance of small openings that are 

created by disturbances (FW-TerrERU-SF-DC-11). These areas provide habitat for San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort and other forbs, grasses and shrubs. In these areas more nutrients and sunlight 

would be available to the herbaceous vegetation, including San Francisco Peaks ragwort, as 

compared to heavily treed areas where resources might be limited.

Climate change has been identified as a risk to the high-elevation habitat occupied by San 

Francisco Peaks ragwort. If the habitat becomes unsuitable for San Francisco Peaks ragwort due 

to climate change, the species could possibly go extinct (Fowler and Sieg 2010). Plan components 

that promote resiliency to uncharacteristic disturbances will help to mitigate the risk. Desired 

conditions for all ecosystems (FW-Eco-DC-1) and all terrestrial ERUs (FW-TerrERU-All-DC-2) 

provide direction for proper functioning ecosystems and resiliency to San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort habitat while reducing the threat of uncharacteristic disturbances. A forestwide soil 

desired condition recognizes the importance of ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling and 

water infiltration (FW-Soil-DC-2), would maintain the harsh soils that support San Francisco 

Peaks ragwort, which will aid in sustaining resiliency. 

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

San Francisco Peaks ragwort is very rare on the forest in its habitat and occupies a small portion 

of its habitat. It is vulnerable to perturbations in the environment because of its small population 

size, rarity, and because it known from only one location. Alpine Tundra ERU is similar to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

439

reference conditions, but is trending away from reference conditions primarily due to climate 

change, which is causing an increase in alpine meadow conditions. 

Warmer and drier weather resulting from climate change and impacts from the exotic spruce 

aphid may increase stress levels on the major tree species within Spruce-Fir ERU leading to 

higher levels of tree mortality and dramatic shifts in the structure and function and possible 

disappearance of the ERU on the forest. Under the scenario of warming and drying conditions, 

the vegetation in this high-elevation ERU cannot migrate upward to higher elevations to escape 

climate change. If this occurs, portions of the ERU containing San Francisco Peaks ragwort may 

substantially degrade and be unsuitable for this species. 

All alternatives contribute to the viability and persistence of the San Francisco Peaks ragwort and 

contain a series of desired conditions to assure that the habitat of San Francisco Peaks ragwort is 

resilient to human impacts and natural disturbance. 

All alternatives maintain the talus slopes that form the primary constituent elements of critical 

habitat for San Francisco Peaks ragwort by reducing recreation impacts through restricting offtrail use in the fragile tundra environment, but the guidance in alternatives B (modified), C, and D 

provide more complete and integrated direction in areas such as biophysical features and soil. 

Given prohibitions in off-trail hiking in the San Francisco Peaks ragwort’s habitat, as well as 

other measures that reduce recreation impacts, trampling of plants, and increased soil instability 

from off-trail hiking would be addressed in all alternatives, but the guidance in alternatives B 

(modified), C, and D is more complete and integrated into program areas. 

Under all alternatives, avalanche abatement would be limited by special-use permit. However, 

unlike alternative A, under alternatives B (modified), C, and D if unauthorized areas are 

impacted, the permittee would be required to rehabilitate the impacted area (FW-SpecUse-S-2). 

Threatened and Endangered: Reptiles

Narrow-headed Gartersnake

Affected Environment 

The narrow-headed gartersnake was listed as threatened in 2014 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2014) with proposed critical habitat defined in 2013 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), but 

not yet designated. No recovery or conservation plan had been published yet. 

Distribution

Narrow-headed gartersnakes are found broadly across the forest, but in densities not thought to be 

viable in many watersheds. This species occurs in perennial stream habitats up to 8,500 feet in 

elevation across the Mogollon Rim in Arizona and New Mexico. This species’ distribution and 

abundance have declined significantly, with densities in some extant populations thought to be 

too low to be viable (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). It had previously been documented 

throughout the sub-basins of the Gila watershed, including the Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers. As of 

2011, the species was only found reliably in Oak Creek Canyon and less reliably, likely due to 

low densities, in other creeks within the Verde watershed on the forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2014). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

440

Habitat

These animals are associated with clear, rocky streams using pool and riffle habitats that include 

cobbles and boulders for hiding as it is an ambush predator (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2014, AZGFD 2012). Streamside, shrub-sized vegetation is important to this species for basking 

and to facilitate quick escape from predators (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). This species 

requires connected aquatic habitats that allow for migration and that are free from invasive 

competitors and predators.

Critical habitat is proposed in upper Verde River watershed, including the Verde River, Oak, and 

West Fork Oak Creeks (AZGFD 2012). The Primary Constituent Elements are stream habitat, 

terrestrial space, viable prey species of native fishes, and absence of non-native or invasive 

species. 

Risk Factors

Threats to narrow-headed gartersnakes include loss or degradation of habitat through changes or 

loss of streamflow and connected aquatic habitats, loss of riparian vegetation and increased 

sedimentation through both grazing and increased recreational use of riparian areas. This species 

is also threatened by introduced or invasive predators, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and predatory 

fishes (AZGFD 2012, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of this analysis includes Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest Types, including adjacent mesquite bosques, and proposed critical habitat for the narrowheaded gartersnake. The analysis below focuses on those risk factors and program areas that 

would be most consequential in terms of maintaining viability for narrow-headed gartersnake. 

Table 74 summarizes the viability analysis for narrow-headed gartersnake. 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 74. Analysis summary for the narrow-headed gartersnake

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

Narrowheaded CWRF Fair, slowly 

toward 

VH Good, slowly 

toward 

H

gartersnake 

(Threatened, 

MBDRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

H 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

441

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

Endemic) MWRF Good, static to 

slowly toward 

H Good, slowly

toward 

H

F Rank = F1* Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH

Management effect CWRF, MBDRF, and 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. 

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.

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

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. 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species are the greatest 

fine filter threats to Narrow-headed gartersnakes and their native fish prey. There is language 

under all alternatives that prioritizes habitat improvement and protections for projects for 

threatened and endangered species (1987 Plan, pages 23, 59, 64-6, 87; FW-LndAdj-G-1, FWMinerals-G-3, FW-RdsFac-G-7, Alternatives B (modified) C, D). Additionally, management 

applications under alternatives 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 (FW-RdsFac-MgtApp, FW-Rip-All-MgtApp, 

FW-Rip-Strm-MgtApp, FW-Water-MgtApp). Finally, all alternatives contain plan components 

provide for some guidance to manage introductions of non-native species (see Non-native or 

Invasive Species in the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section); however, viability of native 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

442

species is threatened on the forest when the focus is limited solely to introductions because most 

of the aquatic habitat on the forest already has undesirable non-native species.

The existing Munds Mountain and Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness Areas protect parts of 

potential critical habitat for this species and habitat for native fish prey species in the Oak Creek 

watershed from sedimentation due to roads and accessibility. 

Alternative A

Because it was listed as Threatened in 2014, the narrow-headed gartersnake was not analyzed in 

previous LRMP or plan amendment Biological Assessments and Biological Opinions. 

The Aquatics Specialist’s Report for the forest Plan Revision FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016d) 

determined “the continued implementation of alternative A may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect the narrow-headed gartersnake and its proposed critical habitat.” Factors leading to this 

finding include relatively inadequate guidance related to management of introduced species; 

threatened and endangered species conservation strategies; integration of riparian, water, and 

aquatic species management strategies; improvement in watershed conditions, riparian, and 

stream habitats; language to support habitat connectivity; and strategies to address climate 

change. In particular, alternative A does not adequately protect habitat conditions of native fish 

communities that the gartersnake relies upon. 

Viability

Table 74 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 conditions 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. 

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.

As shown in table 74, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

narrow-headed gartersnake is high to very high for depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining the narrow-headed gartersnake’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of 

habitat limitation variables for each 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 are high), and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

443

perennial streams (high) (table 9). 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 Cottonwood 

Willow, Mixed Broadleaf, and Montane Willow Riparian Forests, 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, 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 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). 

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. 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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of narrow-headed gartersnake and their native fish prey on the forest. 

Currently, some wilderness protections are afforded by the implementation of broad standards, 

such as complying with Arizona water quality standards that would minimize affects to the 

habitat of narrow-headed gartersnake (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 74). Management concerns not 

currently well addressed in the 1987 plan include language to address management of introduced 

or invasive species; threatened and endangered species conservation strategies; integration of 

riparian, water, and aquatic species management strategies; language to support habitat 

connectivity; and strategies to address climate change. Additionally, recreational use suitability 

from less to more motorized access in the Oak Creek proposed to accommodate the increasing 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

444

human community needs does not provide for protection of narrow-headed gartersnake habitat 

nor that of their prey base, and alternative A retains the most acreage for motorized access and 

roads. Trends in watershed conditions are likely to remain static, with declining flows in perennial 

streams due to climate change and continued water development off-forest lands that impact 

groundwater and stream volume on the forest. Viable populations of this species are very limited 

within its habitat on the forest, and it is sensitive to habitat disturbances that alter riparian 

vegetation, accessible terrestrial space adjacent to streams, debris and boulders for cover and 

stream habitat conditions that support native fish prey including natural hydrograph, connectivity, 

macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities, and introduced or invasive predators and 

competitors. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for narrow-headed 

gartersnake and its critical habitat was “may affect, likely to adversely affect” primarily due to the 

potential for adverse effects of activities such as livestock grazing and thinning or prescribed 

burning in watersheds containing narrow-headed gartersnakes. The Fish and Wildlife Service

determined that “implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the narrow-headed gartersnake and northern Mexican gartersnake, and will 

not destroy or adversely modify their proposed critical habitat” in their draft Biological and 

Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2017b). No 

incidental take was assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided six discretionary 

conservation recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help implement 

recovery plans, or develop information. 

Viability

Table 74 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 would move 

toward desired condition at a faster rate than 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). 

As shown in table 74, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

narrow-headed gartersnake is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods were 

derived by combining narrow-headed gartersnake’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood of habitat 

limitation variables for each ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), Mixed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

445

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), Montane Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), 

and perennial streams (high) (table 9). 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 the narrow-headed gartersnake. 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. 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, 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-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). 

For perennial streams, this management effect 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.

Restoration activities in alternative B (modified) (i.e., installation of non-native species barriers, 

vegetation treatments that reduce uncharacteristic fires within watersheds, vegetation plantings 

and riparian restoration and channel stabilization projects) may have short-term negative impacts, 

but they will have long-term benefits to the species. The greatest threat to narrow-headed 

gartersnake populations is lack of water during drought conditions and predation, competition, 

and effects on the native fish prey base from non-native fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish. Cooperative 

actions with Arizona Game and Fish and the Fish and Wildlife Service under the 

Wildlife/Fish/Plants program may help decrease the threats from non-native species (FW-InvasDC-1; FW-Invas-G-1). Guidance under alternative B (modified) will likely move perennial 

stream habitats more rapidly toward desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 2016j), possibly 

adding and connecting more suitable stream habitats to be available for narrow-headed 

gartersnakes and their prey (also see Connectivity). This species has no recovery plan but has 

proposed critical habitat on the forest, some of which is accessible to grazing and recreational 

impacts. Plan language for Alternative B (modified) includes guidance for incorporating the 

recovery actions and conservation strategies for federally listed or candidate species including 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

446

their critical habitats (FW-WFP-G-1, 2). The implementation of plan components are expected to 

have minimal effects to narrow-headed gartersnake population in the West Fork of Oak Creek. 

Most of the West Fork of Oak Creek watershed is designated as either wilderness or resource 

natural area so vegetation treatments are unlikely to occur.

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified) with a few meaningful exceptions. Alternative C would have more recommended 

wilderness areas. Under alternative C, the Deadwood Draw Recommended Wilderness Area 

increases the protected areas in Beaver Creek, and within the Oak and Beaver Creek 5th code 

HUCs to 17 percent from 15 percent protected under alternatives A, B (modified), and D. 

Wilderness areas and inventories roadless areas provide protections to reduce or eliminate the 

impacts of road and motorized vehicle access. Roads and dispersed recreational use can damage 

riparian vegetation, compact soils, and lead to increases in sedimentation and embeddedness that 

adversely impact the narrow-headed gartersnake and its habitats. In addition, motorized access 

adjacent to Oak and Beaver Creeks may continue to cause adverse impacts, but these areas are 

reduced under alternative C to the greatest extent of the four alternatives.

Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to alternative B (modified) in most aspects. However, alternative D does 

not recommend 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. 

Alternative D would designate the Cottonwood Basin Geological Area (which contain no springs 

and smaller acreage than the area that would be designated as the Cottonwood Basin Geological 

and Botanical Area under alternative B (modified) and C). 

These small changes will not change the conditions and trends in aquatic habitats from those 

provided by alternatives B (modified) and C for this species.

Findings

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of the narrowheaded gartersnake than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of 

the different riparian forests, invasive animal species management, updated language for water 

quality, and language that addresses endemic species. Although alternative C would have the 

same effects as alternative B (modified), 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. Continued management under alternative A would contribute to the viability of 

this species, but less so than the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the 

viability of wildlife species, much of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks 

sufficient guidance for invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the 

different riparian forest types; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or those 

with restricted distributions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

447

Northern Mexican Gartersnake

The northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) was listed as threatened in 2014 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014) with proposed critical habitat defined in 2013 (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2013), but not yet designated. No recovery or conservation plan had been 

published yet. 

Affected Environment 

Distribution

The species’ current distribution in Arizona has been reduced to less than 10 percent of its former 

range along mainstem rivers. It remains in fragmented populations within the middle/upper Verde 

River drainage, and within the forest boundary on State of Arizona lands at Bubbling Ponds and 

Page Springs fish hatcheries (AZGFD 2012). This species is found in Cottonwood Willow and 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forests and prefers slower moving waters with substantial 

amphibian prey. Critical habitat is proposed on the forest within the Verde River watershed in the 

upper Verde River, Oak Creek, and Spring Creek. 

Habitat

Northern Mexican gartersnakes occupy or have critical habitat designated along the upper Verde 

River within Oak and Spring Creeks in Cottonwood Willow and Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forests, but it will use available wetlands, cienegas, and springs. It is most abundant in 

densely vegetative habitat and avoids steep mountain canyon stream habitats (AZGFD 2012). The

gartersnakes forage along streambanks, primarily feeding upon native fish and native frogs and 

tadpoles. Their diet is also supplemented with earthworms and vertebrates such as small rodents, 

lizards, salamanders, and other native and non-native frog species (AZGFD 2012). 

Critical Habitat: The primary constituent elements are stream-side habitat, terrestrial space, 

viable prey species, and absence of non-native or invasive species. 

Risk Factors

Threats include destruction and modification of habitat, predation and competition from nonnative species such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and non-native fishes, and loss of population viability 

due to fragmentation of populations (AZGFD 2012). 

Environmental Consequences

Table 75 summarizes the viability analysis for northern Mexican gartersnake. 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

448

Table 75. Analysis summary for northern Mexican gartersnake

Alternative A Alternatives B (modified), C, 

and D

Species and 

status 

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

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake 

CWRF Fair, slowly toward VH Good, slowly 

toward 

H

(Threatened, 

Endemic)

MBDRF Good, static to slowly 

toward 

H Good, slowly 

toward 

H 

F Rank = F1* Wetlands Good, toward** H Good, toward H 

Perennial 

streams

Poor, static VH Poor, toward VH 

Ephemeral 

Intermittent 

Streams 

Poor, static Accessible: 

VH 

Inaccessible: 

H

Poor, slowly 

toward

VH 

Management effect CWRF, MBDRF, wetlands, and 

ephemeral and intermittent 

streamcourses = 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. 

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.

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.

** 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

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. 

Disease, competition, and predation through introductions of non-native species the greatest fine 

filter threats to northern Mexican gartersnakes and their prey. There is language under all 

alternatives that prioritizes habitat improvement and protections for projects for threatened and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

449

endangered 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 alternatives 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). Finally, all alternatives contain plan components that provide for some 

guidance to manage introductions of non-native species (see Non-native or Invasive Species in 

the Wildlife and Plant Issues and Topics section); however, viability of native species is 

threatened on the forest when the focus is limited solely to introductions because most of the 

aquatic habitat on the forest already has undesirable non-native species.

The existing Munds Mountain and Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness Areas protect parts of 

potential critical habitat for this species and habitat for native fish prey species in the Oak Creek 

watershed from sedimentation due to roads and accessibility.

Alternative A

Prior consultations under the Endangered Species Act 

Because they were listed as threatened in 2014, the environmental consequences for the northern 

Mexican gartersnake were not analyzed in previous LRMP Biological Assessments and 

Biological Opinions. 

The Biological Assessment and the amendment to the Biological Assessment of the Travel 

Management Rule (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2011m) determined the effect for actions in the 

proposed plan amendment “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the northern Mexican 

garter snake.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the finding (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011e, 2011f). 

The Aquatics Specialist’s Report for the forest Plan Revision FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016d) 

determined “the continued implementation of alternative A may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect the northern Mexican gartersnake and its proposed critical habitat.” Factors leading to this 

finding include relatively inadequate guidance related to management of introduced species, 

threatened and endangered species conservation strategies, integration of riparian, water, and 

aquatic species management strategies, recreation management, habitat protection for the snake’s 

amphibian prey base, improvement in watershed, riparian, and stream habitats, language to 

support habitat connectivity, and strategies to address climate change.

Viability

Table 75 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. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

450

Wetlands would remain in good condition and slowly trend toward desired condition based on 

total acres of wetlands. The condition would be fair and slowly trend toward desired conditions if 

the evaluation is based on the number of wetlands. 

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.

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 remain in fair condition with a static trend. 

As shown in table 75, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

northern Mexican gartersnake is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining the northern Mexican gartersnake’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood 

of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (high), Mixed 

Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), wetlands (moderate, by acres), perennial 

streamcourses (high), and ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses (high if accessible, moderate 

if inaccessible) (table 9). 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 Cottonwood 

Willow Riparian Forest, Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 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, 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 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 specific riparian forest types are lacking and 

there is no focus on functioning-at-risk and non-functional riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 

2016b). 

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. Alternative A largely lacks language 

for invasive and non-native aquatic species that were not present historically. These species can 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

451

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 provides some guidance to reduce introductions of non-native species (primarily 

focused on plant species, 1987 Plan, page 206-72), but this language is insufficient in scope to 

maintain viability of Mexican gartersnake on the forest. Currently, some wilderness protections 

are afforded by the implementation of broad standards, such as complying with Arizona water 

quality standards that would minimize affects to gartersnake habitats (1987 Plan, pages 23 and 

74). However, several key management concerns are not currently addressed. These include 

language to address management of introduced or invasive species; threatened and endangered 

species conservation strategies; integration of riparian, water, and aquatic species management 

strategies; language to support habitat connectivity; and strategies to address climate change. 

Additionally, trends in watershed conditions are likely to remain static, with declining flows in 

perennial streams due to climate change and continued water development off forest lands that 

impact groundwater and stream volume on the forest. Viable populations of this species are very 

limited within its habitat on the forest, and it is sensitive to habitat disturbances that alter riparian 

vegetation, accessible terrestrial space adjacent to streams, debris and boulders for cover and 

stream habitat conditions that support native fish prey including natural hydrograph, connectivity, 

macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities, and introduced or invasive predators and 

competitors. 

Alternative B (modified)

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment for the revision of Coconino NF Land Management Plan was prepared 

in 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017c). The determination of effect for northern Mexican 

gartersnake and its critical habitat was “may affect, likely to adversely affect” due primarily to 

potential for adverse effects of activities such as livestock grazing, road construction, and 

thinning or prescribed burning in watersheds containing northern Mexican gartersnakes. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service determined that “implementation of the Coconino NF’s revised LRMP will 

not jeopardize the continued existence of the narrow-headed gartersnake and northern Mexican 

gartersnake, and will not destroy or adversely modify their proposed critical habitat” in their draft 

Biological and Conference Opinion received on August 8, 2017 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2017b). No incidental take was assigned. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided six 

discretionary conservation recommendations intended to minimize or avoid adverse effects, help 

implement recovery plans, or develop information. 

Viability

Table 75 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

452

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.

Wetlands would remain in good condition, the trend would improve to toward desired condition 

regardless of whether the wetlands are evaluated based on the total acres of wetlands or the 

number of wetlands. 

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. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses that are inaccessible would remain in fair condition, 

but the trend would improve to slowly toward desired conditions. 

As shown in table 75, the likelihood that habitat on the forest would be a limiting factor for

northern Mexican gartersnake is high to very high depending on the habitat. These likelihoods 

were derived by combining the northern Mexican gartersnake’s F Rank of F1 with the likelihood 

of habitat limitation variables for each ERU: Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest (moderate), 

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest (moderate), wetlands (moderate, by acres), perennial

streamcourses (high), and ephemeral and intermittent streamcourses (high if accessible, moderate 

if inaccessible) (table 9). 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 northern Mexican gartersnake. 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 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, 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

453

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). 

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 that would maintain their function as movement corridors. 

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). 

Restoration activities in alternative B (modified) (i.e., installation of non-native species barriers, 

vegetation treatments that reduce uncharacteristic fires within watersheds, vegetation plantings 

and riparian restoration and channel stabilization projects) may have short-term negative impacts, 

but they will have long-term benefits to the species. A high percentage of the watersheds that 

potentially contain northern Mexican gartersnakes and their proposed critical habitat also contain 

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer ERU types which are prioritized for treatment with fire and 

mechanical restoration, thereby having short-term adverse effects to riparian forests and 

potentially increasing stream sedimentation. Desired conditions and guidelines should minimize 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

454

effects and therefore the implementation of plan components are expected to have minimal effects 

to northern Mexican gartersnake population in the Verde River. There are long-term benefits 

expected for the species related to the desired conditions in Watersheds and Water, Riparian, 

Soils, and Wildlife, Fish, and Plants programs. The greatest threat to northern Mexican 

gartersnake populations is lack of water during drought conditions and predation, competition, 

and effects on the native fish and amphibian prey base from non-native fish, bullfrogs, and 

crayfish. Cooperative actions with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service under the Wildlife, Fish, and Plants program may help decrease the threats from 

non-native species. 

Livestock grazing may cause significant disturbance to riparian vegetation, alteration of stream 

morphology due to trampling and removal of riparian vegetation, and negative impacts to water 

quality from sedimentation, due to lack of ground cover and bank trampling, and livestock urine 

and feces. Livestock access to Verde River, Oak Creek, West Fork of Oak Creek, and Spring 

Creek is limited to crossing areas and water gaps. The exclosure fence precludes access to river 

from livestock, but there is livestock access in shedding and hibernating habitat. If guidelines are 

followed, negative effects should be minimized. Roads and Facilities and Forest Products 

programs may have short-term adverse effects to the species, but implementation of guidelines 

would provide for a trend toward maintaining or improving habitat for northern Mexican 

gartersnake.

Alternative C

Implementation of plan components under alternative C would have similar effects to alternative 

B (modified). Motorized access adjacent to Oak Creek and Beaver Creeks may continue to cause 

adverse impacts, but these areas are reduced under alternative C to the greatest extent of the four 

alternatives. 

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 contain no 

springs and smaller acreage than the Cottonwood Basin Geological and Botanical Area 

designated under alternatives B (modified) and C). 

Alternative D recommends no new wilderness areas. The effects associated with managing the 

recommended areas under alternatives B (modified) and C 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. Implementation would be the same as alternative A with regard 

to maintenance of existing wilderness. 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

Implementation of alternative B (modified) would contribute more to the viability of northern 

Mexican gartersnake than alternative A because of updated plan components for management of 

the different riparian forests, invasive animal species management, updated language for water 

quality, and language that addresses endemic species. Although alternative C would have the 

same effects as alternative B (modified), it would contribute slightly more to the viability of these 

species due to the additional protection provided in recommended wilderness in the watersheds 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume IIa

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (continued)

Coconino National Forest

455

for this species. Continued management under alternative A would contribute to the viability of 

this species, but less so than the other alternatives. Although it has language to maintain the 

viability of wildlife species, much of the plan language is outdated. For example, it lacks 

sufficient guidance for invasive animal species or disease; does not distinguish between the 

different riparian forests; and lacks language that would protect endemic species or those with 

restricted distributions.