Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision 

Record of Decision

Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) Area

Forest Plan Amendment Number 17

USDA Forest Service

Coconino National Forest

Arizona

Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

1

Decision and Reasons for the Decision

Introduction

I am pleased to announce my decision to adopt changes and clarification for our current 

Coconino National Forest Plan for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) area.1 

This action is needed because the current Forest Plan is silent on some aspects of recreation 

management, limits flexibility for reducing fire risk near residential areas, and fails to address 

some unique circumstances that occur on Coconino National Forest lands that are located 

adjacent to residential areas. There is very little site-specific direction here. The purpose of this 

amendment is general management direction that will be referenced when the Forest Service 

plans and implements subsequent site-specific projects. The Forest Plan Amendment update 

pages are attached. 

This is the second place on the Coconino Forest where Recreation Settings are highlighted as 

objectives to guide management (the first was the Sedona area). This is an excellent method for 

describing the landscape and the human experiences and resource conditions desired for an area.2 

Recreation settings help describe the balance we are trying to strike between human uses on the 

landscape and maintaining the qualities that make these lands enjoyable to visit. Compared to an 

inventory in 1992, the new objectives for recreation settings increase the amount of 

Semiprimitive Motorized setting and a decrease in Roaded Natural setting. In addition, there are 

patches of Semiprimitive Nonmotorized setting objectives. This trend reflects habitat needs for 

wildlife sensitive to human disturbance, and the requests from people for accessible, natural 

appearing landscapes with opportunity for self-exploration. The open houses and public 

comments supported the choice for semiprimitive motorized recreation settings for much of the 

FLEA area. 

I also am pleased that Forest Service employees will have updated management direction for 

recreation as a result of this amendment. Recreation uses in the FLEA area have expanded 

exponentially in their variety, location, and overall number of activities. The Forest Plan was 

silent on some aspects of recreation and this made it more difficult and complicated to make sitespecific decisions. The additions to the criteria for road decisions are an example, where the 

enhanced list of management criteria reflects the complex and necessary choices that must be 

made for road management. 

We are fortunate to have public lands in such close proximity to our homes. Over time, these 

areas have become more and more impacted by daily outdoor activities and infrastructure needs. 

This Forest Plan amendment is not a panacea for management of lands next to urban developed 

areas, but it does set parameters to help managers to be consistent with the Forest Service 

 

1

The Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) Area surrounds the City of Flagstaff, and the Coconino County 

communities of Doney Park, Fort Valley, Kachina Village/Forest Highlands, Lake Mary Road, and Mountainaire. It also 

includes the Lake Mary watershed and lands between Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki National Monuments. Land features 

within the analysis area include Mt. Elden, the Dry Lake Hills, numerous cinder cones that make up the San Francisco volcanic 

field, Walnut Canyon, Pumphouse Wash, Woody Ridge, Observatory Mesa, and A1 Mountain. There are approximately 300,423 

acres of National Forest land within the FLEA area. This decision is for National Forest lands only. 

2

 See the Objectives for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Settings map. 
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

2

mission3. Good planning and the cooperation with neighbors can result in an enhanced “natural 

appearing” forest environment.

Lands influenced by urban and rural development are shown in the Urban Rural Influence Zone 

and some guidelines apply specifically to this zone. In a larger area surrounding Flagstaff and its 

communities fire managers have long referred to the Fire Management Analysis Zone 1U. The 1 

stands for ponderosa pine and the U stands for urban interface. Wildlife cover requirements are 

different in the FMAZ 1U than the remainder of the FLEA area.4 

The length of “neighborhood” perimeter that public agencies must defend from wildfire has 

grown, increasing our community’s exposure. There are currently 230 miles of national forest 

boundary adjacent to private land within the FLEA area. Creating open stand conditions near 

developments is a more viable option for reducing the fire hazard because there are many 

constraints on prescribed burning in such areas. The current Forest Plan management direction 

limits fire managers’ ability to mitigate the increasing fire hazard quickly enough, because there 

is not enough flexibility in cover requirements. My decision to change cover requirements in the 

urban interface will enhance our ability to lessen fire risk. 

It is important to note that this amendment, in conjunction with the current Forest Plan, is used 

as the basis for developing budget proposals. The FLEA area is only a portion of the Forest and 

priorities for FLEA will be balanced with other Forest priorities for trail and other recreation 

management. Current recreation budgets are not keeping up with current maintenance needs or 

new demands. It is likely that the rate of implementation will be opportunistic and tied to other 

resource projects. Partnerships with communities and other agencies can help facilitate 

implementation. 

As an example, our commitment to the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP), and our 

commitment to National Fire Plan goals, has resulted in a five-year schedule of analysis that 

includes portions of the FLEA area. On-the-ground activities in the near future (next 5 to 7 

years) will mostly occur in the locations scheduled for analysis. These include areas 

surrounding, Fort Valley, A1 Mountain, Kachina Village/Forest Highlands, Woody Ridge, 

Mountainaire, Timberline, north and south of Walnut Canyon National Monument, and Doney 

Park. I look forward to continued public comment and site-specific discussions for these project 

areas. As these analyses occur they will incorporate the Forest Plan direction for long-term 

sustainability of the ecosystem. An example is the use of management direction for northern 

goshawk, a species at the top of the food chain, and an indicator of a healthy and sustainable 

forest ecosystem.

Background 

The overall goals and objectives of the Forest Plan continue to guide our management. Since 

the mid-80’s, when the Forest Plan was originally written, there have been many amendments, 

which made either very minor changes in direction or more major shifts. The FLEA Amendment 

needs to be considered within the context of the entire amended Forest Plan. It is not intended 

to be a stand-alone document. 

 

3

 Examples include parameters for social trails, flexibility to reduce risk of wildfire, and additional road management criteria. 

4

 This decision applies to these zones as shown in the Maps of these two zones can be found in the Forest Plan Amendment 

update pages.
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

3

From 1997 to 1999 team members were evaluating the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis 

(FLEA) area for the “left” side of the planning triangle. Forest Service staff reviewed existing 

conditions, and discussed where we were not progressing towards desired conditions, or where 

desired conditions described in the Forest Plan no longer “fit”. Options were identified for 

change (possible management practices) that ranged from site-specific items, to Forest Plan

direction adjustments. The publication Ideas for Change documented this work. Public 

comments to the Ideas for Change are referenced regularly for this project as well as various 

other site-specific projects on the Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger Districts.

In moving from the left side to the right side of the NEPA triangle, the “ecosystem analysis” 

portion was complete and the task remained of choosing which management practices (changes 

to the Forest Plan) were most important to carry over in a Proposed Action for NEPA analysis. 

In addition, at this step, the choice was made to do separate proposed actions for some sitespecific projects and gather the Forest Plan amendment actions into the Proposed Action to 

Amend the Coconino Forest Plan for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) Area

(Proposed Action). Publishing the Proposed Action started us on to the right side of the planning 

triangle and the standard NEPA process for conducting a nonsignificant amendment to the 

Forest Plan. Appendix D of the DEIS describes the rationale for why this is a nonsignificant 

amendment in terms of National Forest Management Act, which guides the contents of forest 

plans.5 

It is interesting to note that the interdisciplinary team reviewed the details of the current Forest 

Plan and found that many of the topic areas identified in the Ideas for Change did not require 

any changes or additions. Many concerns have been more about implementation of the current 

Forest Plan rather than changes to that Plan. The staff and District Rangers noted these concerns 

and some administrative choices about our program of work have been influenced by the FLEA 

analysis. Some items discussed in the Ideas for Change have been or are currently being 

implemented under separate NEPA analysis. Examples have been the Old Caves Crater Roads 

and Trails Project, road maintenance and obliteration work in the Deadman Wash area, GFFP 

 

5

 The 1982 planning regulations are being used for this amendment.

Ideas for 

Change FLEA 

Amendment
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

4

projects, Lake Mary Streams Rehabilitation in the Priest Draw area, Cinder Hills OHV area 

signing and maintenance, the San Francisco Mountain Mineral Withdrawal, Campbell Mesa 

Roads and Trails, Canyon Vista Campground Maintenance, and Marshall Lake Maintenance and 

Rehabilitation. Because many of the topic areas in the Ideas for Change did not require changes 

to the Forest Plan, the FLEA Amendment decision is a set of programmatic course corrections 

applying specifically to the FLEA area. 

Some of the new management direction in this decision provides clarification only, in that it 

brings the Forest Plan up to date with current concepts and terms the Forest Service currently 

uses. Some of the text provides direction where there previously was none, that is to say the 

Forest Plan was silent. The remainder of the text represents an additional or changed goal, 

objective, standard, or guideline. 

Briefly, the purpose and need for this project includes management direction additions or 

clarifications for: 

• fire risk reduction;

• recreation management for lands in close proximity to residential areas; 

• recreation settings (including recommendations for motorized versus nonmotorized 

settings) based on landscape analysis and design;

• recreation setting framework for outfitter/guide and group use, road management, 

camping; and rock climbing direction; 

• wildlife cover and redistribution of future Mexican spotted owl habitat near residential 

areas; and

• increased emphasis on cooperation and coordination with local, State, and Federal 

agencies.

In addition, topics such as scenery, non-native and invasive plants, land ownership-planning, 

watershed, mountain meadows and riparian needed additional Forest Plan language for 

clarification and emphasis.

When the Proposed Action to Amend the Forest Plan for the FLEA area was published, only a 

few topic areas received comments. Therefore the alternatives vary only slightly from each 

other. The remainder of Proposed Action was carried forward as common to all alternatives. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) documents the analysis of three alternatives, 

and documents analysis of the no action alternative (continue with current Forest Plan direction). 

Because there are very few changes required to the text of the DEIS, an errata sheet has been 

completed and the DEIS will serve as the final NEPA document for this project. 

Decision

Based upon my review of all alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative C. Per 

1503.4 (c), changes from the analysis of comments to the DEIS are minor and are described in an 

attached errata sheet.

Alternative C, which includes all of the items, listed in Table 1 below, plus the following:
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

5

• In the Fire Management Analysis Zone, cover is provided on a maximum of 15 percent of 

the forested acres in a Section. 6 Dense stand conditions on steep slopes and within MSO 

PAC’s contribute to the targeted 15 percent cover-condition. Cover-conditions might 

exceed 15 percent per section due to the presence of steeper slopes or MSO PAC’s. In the 

absence of steep slopes or MSO PAC’S projects could retain a maximum of 15 percent 

cover condition to maintain a wildlife travel-way through a section. Projects do not have 

to retain cover-conditions of 15 percent, if a given section poses a high fire hazard to 

nearby neighborhoods. 

• The Waterline Road area is SPM with roads located to limit impacts to disturbance 

sensitive species. There would be fewer miles of road then the current condition.

• The A1 Mountain area adjacent to private lands in Fort Valley is SPNM.

• The Skunk/Fay Canyon areas and lands north of Fisher Point are classified as SPNM 

ROS settings with one or two SPM road corridors located to protect wildlife habitat and 

watershed values of the canyon rim.7

Table 1 below, describes Forest Plan changes common to all alternatives and how they meet the 

purpose and need for change. This table reflects my reasons for choosing these items. 

When land managers undertake NEPA analysis for site-specific projects, they will refer to at 

least four places in the Forest Plan for management direction. First will be the Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines, second will be the current management areas defined primarily by 

vegetation type and topography, third will be the FLEA area-wide goals, objectives, standards 

and guidelines, and fourth will be the FLEA Management Area direction. 

Table 1 Summary of Changes Common to All Action Alternatives and How They Meet Purpose and Need

Topic Area Summary of Forest Plan Amendment

Fuels 

Urban/Rural 

Influence Zone 

Changes create greater emphasis for fire risk reduction within approximately 

1⁄2 mile of private land. There is recognition of the high levels and types of 

daytime recreation uses prevalent near residential areas. There is recognition 

that human disturbance to wildlife is greater in areas adjacent to residential 

areas.

 

6

 The word “section” as used here, means a square mile in a legal description of township, range, and section. The intent of this 

guideline is to distribute cover where needed within the FMAZ 1U without accruing unacceptable wildfire threat to nearby 

neighborhoods. Wherever possible, projects should retain cover-conditions within wildlife travel-ways, MSO protected-activity 

centers (PAC’s), along canyon rims, and on steeper slopes. Projects within the FMAZ 1U, should attempt to retain 15% cover 

within a given forested section.

Dense stand conditions on steep slopes and within MSO PAC’s contribute to the targeted 15% cover-condition. Coverconditions might exceed 15% per section due to the presence of steeper slopes or MSO PAC’s. In the absence of steep slopes or 

MSO PAC’S projects could retain a maximum of 15% cover-condition to maintain a wildlife travel-way through a section. 

Projects do not have to retain cover-conditions of 15%, if a given section poses a high fire hazard to nearby neighborhoods. 

7

 The map for this alternative shows a SPM road corridor linking Old Walnut Canyon Road to Fisher Point area. An alternate 

open road corridor may be chosen based on site-specific analysis. The final outcome would not be required to follow the existing 

FR301 alignment. Another possible open road corridor is FR720 near the water treatment plan on Lake Mary Road. Sitespecific analysis and decision is required to maintain this road as open or close it. 
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

6

Topic Area Summary of Forest Plan Amendment

Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum 

Changes provide a forest setting tool (ROS objectives) giving land managers a 

recreation experience and forest character to strive towards.

Much of the areas currently supporting key wildlife habitat would be 

Semiprimitive ROS setting, either Motorized or Nonmotorized.

Objectives include an increase in Semiprimitive recreation opportunities.

Recreation

Camping

Changes describe a wider variety of camping management options (an 

example is designated dispersed camping). 

The changed text is current with ongoing practices concerning stay limits and 

no camping near developed recreation sites on the Peaks and Mormon Lake 

Ranger Districts. 

Text allows us to take actions to reverse deleterious trends and improve soil 

and water quality conditions in areas of very high concentrations of dispersed 

camping in the Highway 89A corridor, Pumphouse Wash, Marshall Lake, 

Lake Mary, and Walnut Canyon. 

Changes include a change from 53.7% to 75.9% of the Urban/Rural Influence 

Zone closed to camping thereby reducing risk of fire ignition in this zone. 

Recreation

Outfitter/Guides and 

Group Use

Changes create a more efficient process for review, approval, or denial of 

outfitter/guide proposals. New outfitter/guide permits will be awarded 

competitively by soliciting proposals.

ROS objectives would provide a tool by which recreation experience is 

considered when approving outfitter/guides. There is recognition of areas 

where outfitter/guide activities may not be suited, given ecological sensitivity 

or levels of individual use or both.

Recreation

Rock Climbing

Changes provide direction for this activity.

A desired condition is described to manage climbing opportunities while 

protecting sensitive wildlife and vegetation.

Recreation

Trails

Changes recognize the trail situation that occurs adjacent to residential areas in 

terms of higher levels of daytime use, and user-created (social) trails.

Changes place emphasis on reducing impacts of social trails to threatened and 

endangered species.

Changes place emphasis on reducing or eliminating impacts of social trails to 

riparian sites (drainage bottoms and lakebeds).

Changes emphasize the need for community linkages and access points.

Changes provide for ecologically sound trail conditions, without 

micromanaging each user-created (social) trail.

ROS objectives would provide a planning tool that helps managers determine 

the amount and type of trails to construct for nonmotorized and motorized use.
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

7

Topic Area Summary of Forest Plan Amendment

Changes identify some areas where off-trail use by large numbers of 

nonmotorized recreationists is discouraged in order to maintain minimal 

human disturbance to wildlife or limit soil movement on steep cinder or 

canyon slopes.

Changes identify motocross as an activity that is not suited for National Forest 

lands.

Roads 8 Changes add items to the list of criteria used to make road closure decisions. 

Examples include, recreation experience and opportunity, (ROS settings), 

redundant and/or poorly located social roads, noxious weeds, and illegal 

human activities.9

Changes create a list of criteria for keeping roads open.

Changes provide direction on how to choose where roadwork should occur 

first.

Wildlife Habitat

Mexican Spotted Owls 

Changes emphasize future allocation of target threshold habitat outside of the 

U/RIZ and accounting for it in the Shultz and Lake Mary Management Areas.

Wildlife Habitat

Northern Goshawk

Changes provide more detailed direction concerning recreation use in PostFledgling Family Areas (PFAs), and a recognition of high levels of human 

influences in PFA’s located adjacent to residential areas.

Wildlife Habitat

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Changes emphasize monitoring human disturbances prior to approving new 

site-specific projects. Proposed changes allow for future recreation use 

restrictions, if needed, based on monitoring.

Wildlife Habitat Bald 

Eagle Winter Roost 

Guidelines

Changes allow management activities to occur within and adjacent to winter 

roost trees and in surrounding areas for the purpose of maintaining the 

longevity of the roost tree and promoting replacement roosts in the future.

Wildlife Travelways Changes allow for the maintenance of wildlife travelways through balancing 

human uses and fire risk reduction needs with wildlife cover needs in 

travelways.

Forestry

Fuel treatments on 

Cultural Sites as 

Appropriate

Changes allow for fire risk reduction activities to occur on cultural sites if 

those activities are determined to be nonimpacting and/or in the best interest of 

protecting the site. 

Coordination with 

Other Agencies

Changes add emphasis on communication and coordination especially related 

to adjacent land uses and development. 

Visuals

Viewshed to National 

Monuments

Changes identify viewsheds of the National Monuments as important 

considerations in future decisions.

 

8

 A Roads Analysis Report is complete that meets the intent of the Roads Analaysis Process (RAP) as described in FSM7710. 

The RAP is appropriate for FLEA because this decision updates road management criteria. There are no site-specific road 

decisions here. The Roads Analysis Report contains additional progrommatic information for the line officer to reference when 

making site-specific maintenance level decisions. The Roads Analysis Report is a narrative document that follows the format 

outlined in FS-643 Roads Analysis: Informing Decision about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. There is a 

working database and map as well that may be updated over time to display desired conditions for roads in the FLEA area.

9

 Because of the ongoing analysis of raod policy in the Cross-country Use of Motorized Vehicles in Five Arizona Naitonal

Forests Amendment currently occuring, this decision does not address road policy. 
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

8

Topic Area Summary of Forest Plan Amendment

Recreation

Cinder Hills OHV 

Area 

Changes allow for slope closures instead of designated routes to respond to 

resource concerns and provide for safe, enjoyable riding.

Changes allow for distributing riders more evenly within the area and away 

from areas of resource concern by relocating improved roads and camping 

areas. 

Changes identify geologic features in the OHV area that are tied to the 

eruption of Sunset Crater. Proposed changes identify potential activities such 

as road relocations, camping relocation, slope closures, and an area closure 

around Gyp Crater to better maintain and protect these sites. 

Management Area 

(MA) Boundaries 

Changes maintain the link to vegetation and topography, but also provide 

references to communities and established uses. Management emphasis and 

highlights of each MA provide additional desired conditions unique to each 

location. The MAs include, Cinder Hills OHV (MA13), Craters, Deadman 

Wash, Doney, Flagstaff, Lake Mary Watershed, Schultz, Walnut Canyon, 

West and additions to Environmental Study Areas (MA18)10. 

Management Areas

Flagstaff MA lands 

within growth 

boundaries

Changes identify lands within the Urban Growth Boundary for the City of 

Flagstaff. These lands are suited for transfer to other ownership in keeping 

with local City plans.

Recreation

Parking 

Parking Management is added as a tool for reducing impact and providing for 

recreationists.

Environmental Study 

Areas (ESA’s)

Changes adopt two new ESA’s at Old Caves Crater and Griffiths Springs and 

expand the existing ESA at the base of Mt Elden.

Desired Conditions are described for the high levels of daytime recreation use 

and landscape features that make these places available to study and enjoy.

Lake Mary and Oak 

Creek Watersheds

Priority for 

Watershed 

Restoration and 

Maintenance 

New language identifies the Lake Mary/Walnut and Oak Creek Canyon as 

important waters. Within the FLEA area, priorities are identified for 

conducting roadwork, meadow restoration, and other practices.

Rationale for Choosing Alternative C

I understand some people wanted a total SPNM setting completely around the Skunk/Fay and 

Fisher areas. However, Alternative C provides a balance for those people who desire access in 

the area, and the need for administrative access for fire suppression and other management 

needs. The area is managed currently as providing very low human disturbance to wildlife and 

key wildlife areas are within nonmotorized settings under all alternatives. The District Rangers 

have the ability to make site-specific choices about the open road corridors through the area, and 

Alternative C augments the current management trends for this area. Alternative C continues 

protection of soil and water quality. Identification of the open road corridor will be a future sitespecific road management decision, which includes public notification and analysis.

 

10 See the Management Area map attached to the Forest Plan Amendment update pages
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

9

Since the patch of landscape north of A1 Mountain is small and isolated from other motorized 

setting areas, it is beneficial to manage the area as SPNM. 

Alternative C will provide adequate wildlife habitat cover given the amount of human use in the 

FMAZ 1U and will also provide good protection of long-term cover habitat because of the 

reduced risk of stand replacing wildfire. Cover requirements under Alternative C give land 

managers the flexibility they need to reduce fire risk. 

Closing the Waterline11 area to public motorized travel would eliminate a convenient and high 

quality opportunity to those seeking a SPM setting at high elevation. Rather than eliminating 

motorized recreation opportunities from this area, I choose to locate roads carefully and in 

consideration of disturbance sensitive wildlife species. This improves wildlife habitat conditions 

while providing access. The result will be fewer roads than are currently present, and roads will 

continue to be designed for high-clearance vehicles only. I also note the traditional cultural 

values of this area as identified in a letter from the Hopi Tribe. I believe the choice of an SPM 

setting with carefully located primitive roads will maintain these values. Identification of the 

open roads will be a future site-specific road management decision, which includes public 

notification.

Findings Required by Other Laws

This is a Forest Plan amendment that does not result in any on-the-ground activities. Rather 

future on-the-ground activities will undergo separate NEPA analysis and disclosure of affects. 

This alternative meets requirements under the following laws, regulations and policies.

As required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 40 CFR 1500 

Regulations, the DEIS displays alternatives and the environmental effects. The procedural 

requirements of NEPA have been followed and are met. 

As required under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and 36 CFR 219 Regulations, 

14 sensitive species are evaluated in a biological assessment and evaluation regarding the 

preferred alternative for this project. This Forest Plan amendment does not provide management 

direction that would cause future site-specific projects to conflict with resource integration and 

management requirements of 36 CFR 219.

This project was determined to not be an undertaking as defined by the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) because this decision is programmatic in nature. American Indian 

tribes were contacted as part of the scoping process and public disclosure process as required 

under NEPA. 

A Biological Evaluation and Assessment has been prepared for threatened and endangered 

species to disclose effects as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are two 

species within the FLEA area considered in these evaluations, the Mexican spotted owl and the 

bald eagle. The determination of no effect was found for both species and therefore consultation 

with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not required. However, a representative from US 

 

11 The Waterline area east (downslope) of FR146 (the waterline road) and west (upslope) from FR420 (Shultz Pass Road). 
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

10

Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted during the scoping and public disclosure process as 

required under NEPA. 12 

This decision is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as well as recent agency 

guidelines for conformance with the MBTA. Analysis in the DEIS disclosed expected trends 

from applying this management direction to future projects. 

This decision does not change current Forest Plan direction that requires cooperating with State 

agencies in preventing reducing, and eliminating pollution in concert with programs for 

managing water resources as required under the Clean Water Act. Current Best Management 

Practices and Guidance Practices will continue to be used as appropriate on a site-specific basis. 

This decision does not change current practices related to prescribed burning or other activities 

that effect air quality. This decision therefore meets the intent of the Clean Air Act. 

Future site-specific projects analyzed and implemented under the FLEA management direction 

are not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to 

minority or low-income populations. Therefore this project meets the intent of Environmental 

Justice, Executive Order 12898. 

The NEPA implementing regulations (Section 1505.2) require that the alternative(s) that best 

promotes the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA, Section 101, be identified in 

the Record of Decision as the “environmentally preferable alternative” or alternatives. 

Implementation of the FLEA management direction as described under any of the action 

alternatives provides protection to the environment. No alternative is environmentally preferred 

over another. 

Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered three other alternatives in detail, which are 

discussed below. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the DEIS on 

pages 32 through 44. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B does not provide the changes listed in Table 1, rather the current Forest Plan text 

applies. Alternative B does the following. 

• Under No-Action, cover is provided on 30 percent of the forested areas of a 10K Block 

with 10 percent in hiding cover, 10 percent in thermal cover, and 10 percent in 

combination hiding and thermal cover. 

• The Waterline Road area is classified as SPM. 

• The A1 Mountain area adjacent to private lands in Fort Valley is classified as RN. 

• The Skunk/Fay Canyon areas and lands north of Fisher Point are classified as RN.

 

12 See summary of public participation section of this document. 
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

11

Alternative D 

Alternative D would adopt the changes listed in Table 1 above and the same wildlife cover 

guideline as Alternative C. Alternative D also does the following: 

• Cover is the same as Alternative C.

• The Waterline Road area is classified as a SPNM.

• The A1 Mountain area is classified as a SPNM. 

• The Skunk/Fay Canyon areas and lands north of Fisher Point are entirely classified as 

SPNM.

Alternative A

Alternative A would adopt the changes listed in Table 1 above. Alternative A also does the 

following:

• There is no cover requirement in the FMAZ 1U. In the remainder of the FLEA area, 

cover is provided on 30 percent of the forested areas of a 10K Block 13 with 10 percent in 

hiding cover, 10 percent in thermal cover, and 10 percent in combination hiding and 

thermal cover. 

• The Waterline Road area is classified as a SPNM. 

• The A1 Mountain area adjacent to private lands in Fort Valley is classified as a SPM.

• The Skunk/Fay Canyon areas and lands north of Fisher Point are classified as a SPM. 

Table 2 Summary of Issues and Alternatives

Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

#1 – Cover No requirement 

in FMAZ

30% of forested 

acres in 10K 

block

15% of forested 

acres in a 

Section14 within 

FMAZ 1U

15% of forested 

acres in a Section 

within FMAZ 

1U.

#2 –

A1 Mountain 

SPM RN SPNM SPNM

#3 – Skunk/Fay SPM RN SPNM with SPM 

corridor(s)

SPNM entirely

#4 – Waterline SPNM SPM SPM with roads 

designed for 

wildlife

SPNM

 

13 10K Block is a designation used in the Forest Plan to identify an approximately 10,000 acre contiguous area to which some 

management direction is applied. For example, the amount of desired old-growth is identified on a 10K Block basis, which will 

insure distribution of this forest characteristic across the landscape.

14 A Section is 640 acres, 1 square mile.
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

12

Public Involvement

As described in the background, the need for this action arose in 2001. A proposal to amend the 

Coconino National Forest Plan for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary (FLEA) area was listed in the Notice 

of Intent to have an Environmental Impact Statement on April 17th, 2002 in the Federal Register. 

The agency held an Open House on October 22nd, 2001, from 4 till 8 p.m. in the conference room 

of the Coconino Supervisor’s Office in Flagstaff, where people could view larger scale maps and 

ask team members questions about the Proposed Action. A public service announcement was 

aired on local TV and Radio stations announcing the availability of the Proposed Action prior to 

the October 22nd Open House. On Friday, October 19th, a notice appeared in the community 

news section of the local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Sun, announcing the open house and 

availability of the Proposed Action. During the weeks of October 22 to November 16th, meetings 

were held with representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, the Grand Canyon Trust, and Bruce Johnson. These meetings were at the 

request of these individuals so that they could ask team members questions about the Proposed 

Action. The DEIS was provided to the public and other agencies for comment August 27th 

2002. Another open house was held on October 1st, 2002, to provide opportunity for public to 

ask questions about the DEIS. 

Team members, when developing the Proposed Action reviewed public comment received in 

response to Ideas for Change for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Analysis. This document was 

published in May of 1999. Three Open House meetings occurred, one on May 26th at the 

Flagstaff High School, one on May 27th at the Cromer School in Doney Park, and one on June 3rd

at the Highlands Fire Station in Kachina Village. Responses to the Ideas for Change included: 

150 letters or e-mails, 10 petitions, and 185 open house comment sheets. Organizations that 

commented included: Friends of Walnut Canyon, Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc, Cinder Hills Rough 

Riders, American Motorcyclist Association, Arizona Snowbowl, Southwest Forest Alliance, and 

Mountain Mushers. Commenting agencies included Flagstaff Fire Department, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, City of Flagstaff, White Mountain Apache, and Navajo Tribes.

There was little comment on a majority of the Proposed Action. In addition, some concerns were 

not carried forward as significant issues, but are described in the Alternatives Considered but not 

Analyzed in Detail on pages 16 through 21 of the DEIS. Main issues of concern included the 

following. 

Issue 1: Not retaining 30 percent hiding and thermal cover within the FMAZ 1U will affect 

native species including management indicator species. Wildlife would be impacted in the 

vicinity of Walnut Canyon if no cover were provided. There are large-sized wildlife that take 

advantage of the the rmal and hiding properties of dense stands along the Walnut Canyon rim, 

part of which falls within the FMAZ 1U. Wildlife would be impacted in the area of Woody 

Ridge if no cover were provided.

Issue 2: A SPM setting in the small area adjacent to private land on the south side of Fort Valley 

and south of A1 Mountain may not be the best setting choice for this area. Fire risk reduction is 

better achieved with a nonmotorized setting where private lands are located in the path of 

prevailing winds. Wildlife habitat for elk, deer, fox, coyote, raptors, and prairie dogs is better 

served by a nonmotorized setting. The area is too small to be useful to motorized travel and 

many of the current routes dead-end.
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

13

Issue 3: ROS setting near Skunk/Fay Canyons and lands north of Fisher Point: A SPM setting 

surrounding Skunk and Fay Canyons and lands north of Fisher Point may not be the best choice 

for this area. The type of recreation experience desirable is nonmotorized recreation such as 

hiking, mountain biking, and horse riding. Absence of vehicles will maintain areas with limited 

erosion especially in canyon bottoms and steep slopes. Absence or limited vehicles will lessen 

levels of human disturbance to sensitive wildlife species so that the wildlife are more likely to 

successfully occupy the canyon and its rim.

Issue 4: The SPNM setting downslope from the Waterline Road (FR 14615) may not be the best 

choice for this area. The Proposed Action creates too many SPNM patches on the landscape, 

limiting opportunity for forest driving experiences especially at high elevations and around the 

San Francisco Mountain. A nonmotorized setting is not necessary for disturbance sensitive 

species. Wildlife habitat can still be maintained with a well-designed SPM road system. 

Implementation Date

This project will be implemented16 five business days after the close of the appeal period, if no 

appeals are filed. In the event of an appeal, implementation may take place 15 days following an 

appeal decision.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 217. A notice of appeal must be in 

writing and clearly state that it is a Notice of Appeal being filed in pursuant to 36 CFR 217 

Appeals must be filed with Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Regional 

Office R3, 333 Broadway Boulevard SE, Albuquerque, NM 87103, within 45 days of the date of 

legal notice of this decision in the Arizona Daily Sun.

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact 

Alvin Brown or Debbie Kill, Peaks Ranger District Office, 5075 N Hwy 89, Flagstaff, AZ 

86004 or phone 928-526-0866 or e-mail dkill@fs.fed.us. 

/s/Jim Golden 12/20/02

JIM GOLDEN DATE

Coconino Forest Supervisor

 

15 FR146 travels along the Kachina Wilderness boundary on the east side of the San Francisco Mountain. It is gated and used as 

a recreation trail and provides maintenance access to the City of Flagstaff wells in the Inner Basin.

16 Implementation means that the Forest Plan direction will be in place for use in site-specific planning.
Coconino National Forest Plan – Amendment No. 17 – December 2002 – Record of Decision

14

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

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all 

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

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.