United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region

MB-R3-04-19

February 2013

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

the Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative

Coconino and Kaibab National 

Forests, Coconino County, 

Arizona

Cover photo from Kaibab NF files, courtesy of David Brewer with ERI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed on recycled paper ● February 2013.

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs i 

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forests

Coconino County, Arizona

Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Responsible Officials: Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor 

Coconino National Forest 

1824 South Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

Mike Williams, Forest Supervisor 

Kaibab National Forest 

800 South Sixth Street 

Williams, AZ 86046 

For Information Contact: Henry Provencio, 4FRI Project Team Leader

1824 South Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

(928) 226-4686 

Abstract: The Coconino and Kaibab National Forests (NFs) are proposing to conduct restoration 

activities over a 10-year period. Four alternatives were considered in detail. Alternative A

proposes no action. There would be no changes in current management. Alternatives B–D would 

mechanically treat up to 593,211 acres of vegetation and treat up to 587,923 acres with prescribed 

fire. Alternative C is the preferred alternative. All action alternatives include other activities that 

would provide access to the project or improve soil and watershed function. All action 

alternatives require nonsignificant forest plan amendments.

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

are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the final environmental impact statement. Therefore, 

comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific 

comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or 

judicial review.

Comments received in response to this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) solicitation, 

including names, addresses, and phone numbers of those who comment, will be part of the public 

record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 

considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. 
ii DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Send Comments to: Henry Provencio, 4FRI Team Leader 

1824 S. Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 869001

Date Comments Must Be Received: The 60-day public comment period begins on the day 

after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability for the draft EIS in 

the Federal Register. Comments MUST be received before the close of business on the last day of 

the comment period. 
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs iii

Summary 

The Coconino and Kaibab National Forests (NFs) are proposing to conduct a suite of restoration 

activities on approximately 587,923 acres over a period of 10 years. Of this total, approximately 

356,115 acres would be treated on the Flagstaff, Mogollon, and Red Rock districts of the 

Coconino NF and 231,809 acres would be treated on the Williams and Tusayan districts of the 

Kaibab NF. 

The purpose of the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest health,

and vegetation composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest resiliency and 

sustainability, protect soil productivity, and improve soil and watershed function. Resiliency 

increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest to survive natural disturbances such as fire,

insect and disease, and climate change (FSM 2020.5). 

Over 50 percent of the ponderosa pine is even-aged and lacks age class diversity. The single-age 

forest structure has reduced the health of the ponderosa pine forest. Large, old ponderosa pine 

trees are rare across the landscape. The remaining old pines are at risk of mortality from the 

increased overcrowding of trees (stand density related mortality) and the potential for severe fire 

effects. 

In contrast to having a ponderosa pine ecosystem consisting of groups of trees mixed with 

interspaces, approximately 74 percent of the ponderosa pine forest type within the project area is 

departed from desired conditions. Non-forested openings have been invaded by ponderosa pine 

since fire exclusion and this has changed the natural (and desired) spatial pattern.

The dense, single-age forest structure combined with the lack of non-forested openings has 

affected function related to the presence of grass, forbs, and shrubs (vegetation composition and 

diversity). There is reduced understory productivity and function throughout the forest and within 

grasslands and meadows where trees have encroached. Ephemeral stream function has been 

affected by reduced ground cover, the presence of noxious weeds, tree encroachment, and the 

lack of fire. Spring function has been affected by drought, the lack of fire, and closed forest 

canopies, which increase evapotranspiration.

The existing forest structure has reduced forest health. This has affected resiliency or the ability 

of ponderosa pine to withstand natural disturbances including fire, insect and disease, and 

changing climatic conditions, such as drought. Over 200,000 acres (34 percent) are at risk from 

crown fire. Additional acres, primarily within or adjacent to Mexican spotted owl habitat are at 

risk from high intensity surface fire that can result in high-severity effects.

Approximately 71 percent of the ponderosa pine in the project area has a high hazard rating for 

bark beetle. About 34 percent of the ponderosa pine is moderately to heavily infected with dwarf 

mistletoe (see silviculture report). The current deficiency in resiliency is attributed to closed 

forest conditions and the associated buildup of forest fuels.

The project was posted in the Coconino NF and Kaibab NFs’ schedule of proposed actions 

(SOPA) in January of 2011 and the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2011 (Vol. 76 FR 4279–4281). A 

draft proposed action was sent to a mailing list (hard copy and electronic mail) of 1,331 

individuals, local government, State government, Federal and State agencies, and organizations. 

Fifty-four scoping responses (emails and letters) were received through May 5, 2011. A scoping 

report that included a summary of the scoping process was posted on the 4FRI Web site on June 
Summary 

iv DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

29, 2011 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri). In 2011, five public workshops were held during the 

informal scoping period, and two public meetings were held after the close of the scoping period. 

On March 11, 2011, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) was designated a 

cooperating agency. The agency provided a habitat specialist to serve as an interdisciplinary team 

member and assist with the wildlife analysis.

A revised proposed action was sent to a mailing list of 213 parties (169 electronic mail and 44 

hard copy recipients) and a second 14 day informal scoping period began with publication of a 

second revised NOI in the Federal Register on August 19, 2011 (Vol. 76 FR. 51936–51938). Less 

duplicates, 42 scoping responses (emails and letters) were addressed in content analysis.

Four key issues focused the analysis or drove alternative development: 

• Issue 1: Prescribed Fire Emissions, was raised primarily by residents in the Verde 

Valley and Snowflake, Arizona, area. Residents are concerned that project emissions

will degrade air quality. Degraded air quality would affect tourism, their quality of life, 

and their health. Social controversy related to this issue is centered on whether 

radioactive nuclides would be emitted when prescribed fire is used, creating additional 

health risks.

• Issue 2: Conservation of Large Trees, was specifically raised after the August 2011 

revised proposed action excluded the stakeholder developed Large Tree Retention 

Strategy (LTRS). The LTRS represented social agreement between parties and was 

developed as a means to support landscape restoration and reduce conflict. The social 

controversy associated with this issue is that support for landscape-scale restoration may 

be withdrawn if the LTRS concepts are ignored.

• Issue 3: Post-treatment Canopy Cover and Landscape Openness, is an issue that 

reflects concerns related to conducting landscape restoration. The scale and intensity of 

the proposed restorative treatments would result in more lands being in an open 

condition. The treatments needed to provide for “openness” could increase the logging 

of mature and old trees and negatively affect wildlife, including goshawk and its prey 

species. Nonsignificant forest plan amendments (included in each action alternative) are 

needed to achieve desired conditions. The social controversy is a concern that National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements would not be met. 

• Issue 4: Increased Restoration and Research, reflects recommendations to increase 

the acres of grassland restoration, include opportunities for wildlife and water yield 

research, increase habitat restoration in Mexican spotted owl habitat, and have 

treatments in alignment with the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision” 

(USDI 2012).

Other comments and recommendations (not considered key issues) were raised during the public 

workshops and/or submitted via email or letter. Many comments requested additional detail on 

what vegetation and prescribed fire treatments would look like once implemented. In response, a 

summary of design criteria complete with visuals was developed and included in the revised 

proposed action and an implementation plan was developed. Many commenters provided 

recommendations on identifying and prioritizing resources and infrastructure at risk from highseverity fire. This input was used to develop the initial prioritization and treatment location 

assessment matrix, which can be found in the project record. Stakeholders provided input on the 
Summary 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs v 

use of the best available science and recommended additional literature references and citations. 

These changes were incorporated into the purpose and need. Another topic that emerged during 

scoping was the conservation of old trees. In response to recommendations, key concepts from 

the stakeholder-developed Old Tree Protection Strategy were incorporated into the purpose and 

need and all alternatives. Some comments were resolved by addressing the topic in environmental 

consequences. See the “Public Involvement” section (chapter 1) for additional information and 

the 2011 scoping report for the complete evaluation of comments and responses.

Alternatives

Five alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study (see chapter 2) and four 

alternatives were evaluated in detail (see table 1 and chapter 2). The alternatives evaluated in 

detail include:

• Alternative A is the no action alternative as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(c). There 

would be no changes in current management and the forest plans would continue to be 

implemented. Alternative A is the point of reference for assessing action alternatives B–

D. 

• Alternative B is the proposed action. This alternative would mechanically treat 

388,489 acres of vegetation and utilize prescribed fire on 587,923 acres. It incorporates 

comments and recommendations received during 8 months of collaboration with 

individuals, agencies, and organizations. It proposes mechanically treating up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. in 18 Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected activity centers (PACs) and includes 

low severity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs, including 56 core areas. Three 

nonsignificant forest plan amendments on the Coconino NF and two nonsignificant 

forest plan amendments on the Kaibab NF would be required to be in compliance with 

the plans (see table 2). 

• Alternative C is the preferred alternative. This alternative would mechanically treat 

434,001 acres of vegetation and utilize prescribed fire on 593,211 acres. It responds to 

Issue 2 (conservation of large trees) and Issue 4 (increased restoration and research). It 

adds acres of grassland treatments on the Kaibab NF, incorporates wildlife and 

watershed research on both forests, and mechanically treats and uses prescribed fire 

within the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area on the Kaibab NF. It 

proposes mechanically treating up to 18-inch d.b.h. in 18 MSO PACs and includes low 

severity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs, including 56 core areas. Key components 

of the stakeholder created Large Tree Retention Strategy are incorporated into the 

alternative’s implementation plan. Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments on the 

Coconino NF and three nonsignificant amendments on the Kaibab NF would be required 

to be in compliance with the plans (see table 2). 

• Alternative D would mechanically treat 388,489 acres of vegetation and utilize 

prescribed fire on 178,790 acres. This alternative was developed in response to Issue 1,

Prescribed Fire Emissions. It decreases the acres that would receive prescribed fire by

30 percent when compared to alternative B (proposed action). It proposes mechanically 

treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. in 18 Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected activity centers

(PACs) but the PACs would not be treated with prescribed fire. Three nonsignificant 

forest plan amendments on the Coconino NF and two amendments would be required on 

the Kaibab NF to be in compliance with the plans (see table 2).
Summary 

vi DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Actions Common to Alternatives (B–D)

• All action alternatives (B–D) propose additional actions including restoring springs and 

ephemeral channels, constructing protective fencing in select aspen stands, constructing 

(and decommissioning) temporary roads, reconstructing and improving roads, relocating 

a minimal number of road miles, and decommissioning existing roads and unauthorized 

routes (table 1). 

• On those acres proposed for prescribed fire, two fires would be conducted over the 10-

year period. 

• Design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation to be used as part of 

alternatives B–D are located in appendix C. 

• All action alternatives incorporate key components of the Old Tree Protection Strategy 

into the alternative’s design features (appendix C), implementation plan (appendix D), 

and monitoring and adaptive management plan (appendix E). The Forest Service worked 

collaboratively with stakeholders to develop the monitoring and adaptive management 

and implementation plan.

• All action alternatives include adaptive management actions that would be taken as 

needed to restore springs, ephemeral channels, and naturalize decommissioned and 

unauthorized roads (see table 16 in chapter 2).

• All action alternatives address Issue 3, post-treatment canopy cover and landscape 

openness. Alternatives B–D are designed to meet canopy cover in VSS 4 to VSS 6 in 

compliance with the forest plans, with the exception of those acres treated for an open 

reference condition (savanna). Each alternative addresses the interrelationship between 

canopy cover and old and large trees.

Table 1. Summary of alternatives analyzed in detail

Proposed 

Activity

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Alternative C

(Preferred ) Alternative D

Vegetation 

Mechanical 

Treatment

(acres)

0 388,489 434,001 388,489

Prescribed Fire 

(acres)* 

0 587,923 593,211 178,790

MSO PAC

Habitat 

Treatments 

NA Mechanically treat up 

to 16-inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs (excluding core

areas)

Utilize prescribed fire 

in 72 MSO PACs 

(excluding core areas) 

Mechanically treat

up to 18-inch d.b.h.

in 18 PACs 

Utilize prescribed 

fire in 56 MSO

PACs (including 

core areas)

Utilize prescribed 

fire in 16 MSO

PACs (excluding 

core areas) 

Mechanically treat up 

to 16-inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs (excluding core

areas)

Utilize prescribed fire 

in 72 MSO PACs 

(excluding core areas) 
Summary 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs vii

Proposed 

Activity

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Alternative C

(Preferred ) Alternative D

Springs

Restored 

(number) 

0 74 Same as alternative B

Springs 

Protective 

Fence 

Construction 

(miles)

0 Up to 4 Same as alternative B

Aspen

Protective 

Fencing (miles)

Up to 82 Same as alternative B

Ephemeral 

Stream 

Restoration 

(miles)

0 39 Same as alternative B

Temporary 

Road 

Construction 

and 

Decommission

(miles) 

0 517 Same as alternative B 

Road 

Reconstruction/ 

Improvement

(miles) 

NA Up to 30 Same as alternative B 

Road 

Relocation

(miles)

NA Up to 10 Same as alternative B 

Existing Road 

Decommission 

(miles) 

NA 770 Same as alternative B 

Unauthorized 

Route 

Decommission 

(miles) 

NA 134 Same as alternative B 

*On those acres proposed for prescribed fire, two fires would be conducted over the 10-year period.
Summary 

viii DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 2. Summary of forest plan amendments by alternative and theme

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management in MSO Habitat

Alternative

Mechanical 

Treatments in 

PACs – CNF Only

Treatments in 

PAC Core Areas 

– CNF Only

Restricted Habitat 

Management – 

KNF Only

Basal Area in 

Restricted Target 

and Threshold 

Habitat – CNF 

and KNF

Population and 

Habitat 

Monitoring – CNF 

and KNF

Habitat Treatment in 

Incremental 

Percentages

A NA NA NA NA NA NA

B Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 16-

inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs

NA Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2: Adds definitions for 

target and threshold 

habitat, allows 

managing for less than 

10% target or threshold 

habitat

NA—basal area in 

restricted target and 

threshold habitat 

remains 150 on both 

forests

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 2 

Defers monitoring to

the project’s U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) 

biological opinion

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2: Defers treatment 

design to the project’s 

FWS biological opinion

C Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 18-

inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows prescribed 

fire in 56 core areas

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

3: Adds definition of 

restricted and threshold 

habitat, allows 

managing for less than 

10% target or threshold 

on Coconino NF and 

Kaibab NF

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 3 

Allows for managing 

6,321 acres on the 

Coconino NF and 

2,090 acres on the 

Kaibab NF of 

restricted target and 

threshold habitat for a 

range of 110 to 150 

BA 

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 3 

Defers monitoring to 

the project’s FWS 

biological opinion

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

3: Defers treatment 

design to the project’s 

FWS biological opinion
Summary 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs ix

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management in MSO Habitat

Alternative

Mechanical 

Treatments in 

PACs – CNF Only

Treatments in 

PAC Core Areas 

– CNF Only

Restricted Habitat 

Management – 

KNF Only

Basal Area in 

Restricted Target 

and Threshold 

Habitat – CNF 

and KNF

Population and 

Habitat 

Monitoring – CNF 

and KNF

Habitat Treatment in 

Incremental 

Percentages

D Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 16 

inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs

NA Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2: Adds definitions for 

target and threshold 

habitat, allows 

managing for less than 

10% target or threshold 

habitat on the Coconino 

NF and Kaibab NF

NA—basal area in 

restricted target and 

threshold habitat 

remains 150 on both 

forests

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1 

Defers monitoring to 

the project’s FWS 

biological opinion

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2: Defers treatment 

design to the project’s 

FWS biological opinion

Alternative Description

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine with an Open Reference Condition within 

Goshawk Habitat on the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF 

A NA

B–D Coconino NF Amendment 2 and Kaibab NF Amendment 1: (1) adds the desired percentage of interspaces within uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration; 

(2) adds the interspace distance between tree groups; (3) adds language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured; (4) allows 29,017 acres on 

Coconino NF (alts B-D) and 27,637 acres on Kaibab NF (Alts B, D), 27, 675 acres (Alt C only) to be managed for an open reference condition (up to 90 

percent open with less than 3 to 5 reserve trees); and (5) adds a definition to the forest plan glossary for the terms: interspaces, open reference condition, and 

stands. 

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management of the Proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area on the Kaibab NF (Only) 

A NA

B NA
Summary 

x DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative Description

C Kaibab NF Amendment 2: The amendment would add language to allow prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order to maintain and/or restore the 

ecological qualities of the proposed research natural area.

D NA

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Effect Determination for Cultural Resources on the Coconino NF (Only)

A NA

B–D Coconino NF Amendment 3: The amendment deletes the standard that would require achieving a “no effect” determination and adds the words “or no 

adverse effect” to the remaining standard. In effect, management strives to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination. 
Summary 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xi

Major Conclusions 

To varying degrees, all action alternatives meet forest structure and pattern, forest health, and 

vegetation composition and diversity elements of the purpose and need by:

• Improved representation in the grass/forb/shrub, seedling/sapling, mature, and old 

structural stages, and trending toward a balance of structural stages; 

• Attaining a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups on 41 to 44 percent of treatment acres; 

• Creating landscape heterogeneity (while still meeting fire behavior objectives) with 

alternative C providing the highest percentage (17 percent) of closed canopy conditions;

• Reducing stand density below the density related mortality zone (less than 56 percent of 

maximum stand density index (SDI) in all goshawk habitat and in restricted MSO

habitat;

• Reducing the percentage of the landscape with a high bark beetle hazard rating (reduced 

from 83 percent (alternative A) to a range of 26 to 45 percent) resulting in increased 

resiliency to future attacks;

• Reducing the trajectory of dwarf mistletoe infection from intensifying and spreading 

(alternative A) to a lower rate of spread in alternatives B, C, and D; 

• Reducing the potential for crown fire below 10 percent; 

• Promoting vegetation composition and diversity with alternatives B and D improving 

the most large oak (84,177 acres); 

• Creating and enhancing grassland inclusions in over 300,000 acres of MSO and 

goshawk habitat; 

• Moving historic grasslands toward desired conditions with alternative C moving the

most (11,230) acres; and 

• Improving soil condition and function, and protecting soil productivity and watershed 

function. 

In alternative A, over 200,000 acres (34 percent of the project area) would continue to have the 

potential for high-severity fire effects from crown fire. In alternatives B, C, and D, the potential 

for high-severity effects from crown fire in the project area would be reduced to approximately 

23,000 to 41,000 acres (4 to 7 percent). In the short term (2020), all action alternatives would 

move toward desired conditions for fire regime condition class (FRCC) at the project area scale. 

However, in the long term (2050), over 50 percent of the project area in alternative D would 

revert to FRCC 3, resembling current conditions. 

All action alternatives would cause soil disturbance and erosion rates below tolerance level and 

would improve herbaceous understory productivity and nutrient cycling. Soil productivity and

soil and watershed function would move toward desired conditions. There is a risk of severe soil 

effects from fire in alternative A. All action alternatives propose to use prescribed fire at different 

levels that would comply with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

requirements. Emissions from the action alternatives are lower than predicted under a wildfire 

scenario in alternative A.
Summary 

xii DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

All action alternatives provide and sustain long term MSO nesting and roosting habitat and 

reduce the risk of high severity wildland fire and other natural disturbances. For management 

indicator species (MIS), alternative A has the potential to decrease the quantity and quality of the 

habitat (fire risk) and decrease the population trend in the long term as canopies close, understory 

production decreases, and Gambel oak is shaded out from pine. Alternatives B, C, and D may 

increase the quality and quantity of the habitat and increase the population trend. However, for 

Abert’s squirrel (Coconino NF) and the tassel-eared squirrel (Kaibab NF), there may be a shortterm decrease in habitat quantity and quality and population trend that changes to increasing in 

the long term. There would be no measurable negative effects to migratory bird populations, and 

habitats for which important bird areas (IBAs) were established would benefit from alternatives 

B, C, and D. 

Overall, alternative A would not prevent, delay, or decrease the predicted effects of climate 

change. Forest density would continue to increase, heightening the risk of stand density and insect 

and disease related mortality. The ponderosa pine forest would have limited resilience to survive 

and recover from potential large-scale impacts. Alternatives B and C affect fire behavior, forest 

structure, and forest health, and increase resilience to natural disturbances associated with climate 

change on over 500,000 acres in both the short and long term. Alternative D increases forest 

resiliency to large-scale impacts (including climate) in the short term. In the long term, however, 

over 300,000 acres would return to pretreatment conditions and would be susceptible to highseverity surface effects, which equates to reduced resiliency to natural disturbances.

In alternative A, carbon stocks would remain high. In a current management scenario, large-scale 

fire events would release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. In alternatives B, C, 

and D, individual tree growth would improve, resulting in larger average trees size and increased 

carbon storage over time, offsetting short-term losses of carbon removed through the mechanical 

thinning. 

Decision Framework

The Coconino and Kaibab NF supervisors are the Forest Service officials responsible for deciding 

whether to select the actions as proposed (alternative B), select one of the other action alternatives 

including alternative C and alternative D, select an alternative that combines attributes from the 

alternatives or another variation, or, select no action (alternative A). Their decision includes 

determining: (1) the location and treatment methods for all restoration activities; (2) design 

criteria, mitigation, and monitoring requirements; (3) the components that will be included in the 

monitoring and adaptive management plan; (4) the components that will be included in the 

implementation checklist and plan; (5) the estimated products or timber volume to make available 

from the project; and (6) whether the forest plans will be amended. 
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xiii

Contents

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Project Overview ..................................................................................................................... 2

Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 4

4FRI Background .................................................................................................................... 7

Project Record ......................................................................................................................... 8

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 8

Decision Framework ............................................................................................................. 29

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 34

Final Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 47

Alternative Development Process ......................................................................................... 47

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................. 48

Alternatives Considered in Detail ......................................................................................... 62

Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 95

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................. 105

Soils and Watershed ............................................................................................................ 105

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 121

Fire Ecology ........................................................................................................................ 149

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 166

Terrestrial and Semiaquatic Wildlife and Plants.................................................................. 173

Aquatics ............................................................................................................................... 245

Noxious and Invasive Weeds ............................................................................................... 256

Heritage Resources .............................................................................................................. 259

Tribal Relations ................................................................................................................... 265

Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................... 272

Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 284

Lands and Minerals ............................................................................................................. 297

Scenery ................................................................................................................................ 301

Range .................................................................................................................................... 311

Transportation...................................................................................................................... 318

Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 321

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ..................................................................... 329

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................. 330

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 331

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 331

Other Required Disclosures ................................................................................................. 331

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................... 333

Preparers and Contributors .................................................................................................. 333

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent ... 335

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 341

References .................................................................................................................................. 357
Contents

xiv DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Appendix 

A – Map Packet .................................................................................................................... 437

B – Forest Plan Amendments ............................................................................................... 439

Alternative B – Coconino National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 442

Alternative B – Kaibab National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 472

Alternative C – Coconino National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 498

Alternative C – Kaibab National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 535

Alternative D – Coconino National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 563

Alternative D – Kaibab National Forest Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan 

Amendments ................................................................................................................. 564

C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation ........................................................................ 565

D – Alternative B Through D Implementation Plan ............................................................ 601

E – Alternative B Through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan ........................ 659

F – Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 675

G – Bridge Habitat ............................................................................................................... 699

Index ........................................................................................................................................... 715

List of Figures

Figure 1. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) vicinity map ................................................. 2

Figure 2. EIS project boundary on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests ........................... 3

Figure 3. Coconino NF and Kaibab NF ranger districts within the project area........................... 4

Figure 4. Restoration units (RU) within the project area .............................................................. 5

Figure 5. Restoration subunits within the project area .................................................................. 6

Figure 6. Existing canopy openness within the project area ....................................................... 10

Figure 7. Even-aged forest structure common throughout the project area ................................. 11

Figure 8. Ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper stands that best meet old growth conditions ....... 17

Figure 9. Ponderosa pine overtopping of Gambel oak in the 

Bar-M (Coconino NF) portion of the project area ....................................................... 19

Figure 10. Existing condition of aspen near Government Prairie, Kaibab NF ............................. 19

Figure 11. Fern Mountain (Hart Prairie) Grassland circa 1880s ................................................... 20

Figure 12. Fern Mountain (Hart Prairie) Grassland circa 1980s ................................................... 20

Figure 13. Post-treatment pine-sage desired condition (Kaibab NF) ............................................ 21

Figure 14. Current crown and surface fire potential in the project area ....................................... 22

Figure 15. Locations of resources at risk (for reference with figure 14) ...................................... 23

Figure 16. Degraded Babbitt Spring on the Coconino NF ............................................................ 26

Figure 17. Restored Hoxworth Spring .......................................................................................... 27

Figure 18. Hoxworth Springs restoration ...................................................................................... 27

Figure 19. Degraded ephemeral/riparian stream (Coconino NF).................................................. 27

Figure 20. Restored Hoxworth Spring drainage immediately post-treatment 

(photo on left) and 1 year post-treatment (photo on right) .......................................... 28

Figure 21. Forest plan management and geographic areas within the project area ...................... 30

Figure 22. Final proposed action general locations 

of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments .............................................................. 43
Contents

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xv

Figure 23. Final proposed action general locations of road activities by RU ............................... 44

Figure 24. Final proposed action general location of spring 

and ephemeral channel restoration actions by RU ...................................................... 45

Figure 25. High surface fuel loadings in Mormon Mountain PAC (2001), Coconino NF ............ 51

Figure 26. Alternative B general locations of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments ........... 73

Figure 27. Alternative B–D general locations of road treatments ................................................ 75

Figure 28. Alternative B–D general locations of spring and stream treatments ........................... 76

Figure 29. Alternative B mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments in goshawk and MSO habitat .............................................................. 78

Figure 30. Alternative B–D ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper old growth allocation ............... 80

Figure 31. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed fire treatments ............................................ 85

Figure 32. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments in goshawk and MSO habitat .............................................................. 87

Figure 33. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed fire treatments............................................ 92

Figure 34. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments in goshawk and MSO habitat .............................................................. 94

Figure 35. Stratification of ponderosa pine forested 

lands, other cover types, and nonforested land .......................................................... 123

Figure 36. Typical stocking of a 1-acre group to 

meet LOPFA canopy cover desired condition ........................................................... 129

Figure 37. Typical stocking of a 1-acre group to meet PFA canopy cover desired condition ..... 130

Figure 38. Existing fire potential in RU 1 ................................................................................... 150

Figure 39. Existing fire potential in RU 3 ................................................................................... 151

Figure 40. Existing fire potential in RU 4 ................................................................................... 152

Figure 41. Existing fire potential in RU 5 ................................................................................... 153

Figure 42. Existing fire potential in RU 6 ................................................................................... 154

Figure 43. Airsheds defined by the Arizona Department of Environment Quality..................... 168

Figure 44. Emissions from surface fuels burning in wildfires after various treatments ............. 172

Figure 45. Mexican spotted owl habitat within the 4FRI treatment area .................................... 179

Figure 46. Race and ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 277

Figure 47. Carbon storage per acre comparing the no action baseline 

scenario with 10- and 20-year fire return intervals (Woods et al. 2012) ................... 324

Figure 48. Fifteen years after the Horseshoe Fire (photo from November 2011) ....................... 326

Figure 49. Healthy ponderosa pine forest ................................................................................... 326

Figure 50. Alternative B amendment 1 MSO PAC treatments ................................................... 454

Figure 51. Alternative B goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 and VSS 6 (Coconino and Kaibab NF) ................................ 464

Figure 52. Alternative B general locations of savanna and grassland 

restoration treatments (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) .............................................. 465

Figure 53. Alternative B general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) ............................. 480

Figure 54. Alternative B general locations of savanna and 

grassland restoration treatments (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) .............................. 481

Figure 55. Alternative B amendment 2 landscape target and threshold analysis ........................ 493

Figure 56. Alternative B–D MSO target and threshold habitat on the Kaibab NF ..................... 494

Figure 57. Project-scale designated MSO target and threshold habitat ...................................... 495

Figure 58. Alternative C amendment 1 proposed activities in 

MSO PACs in relation to no treatment areas (Coconino NF) ..................................... 511

Figure 59. Alternative C amendment 1 prescribed fire within and outside of MSO core areas . 512
Contents

xvi DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 60. Alternative C amendment 1 landscape target and threshold analysis ........................ 513

Figure 61. Alternative C amendment 1 general locations of MSO target and 

threshold habitat managed from 110 to 150 basal area (Coconino NF) .................... 514

Figure 62. Alternative C amendment 1 locations of MSO target and threshold treatments ....... 515

Figure 63. Alternative C general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) ............................. 526

Figure 64. Alternative C amendment 2 general locations of savanna and 

grassland restoration treatments (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) .............................. 527

Figure 65. Alternative C general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) ............................. 542

Figure 66. Alternative C general locations of savanna and grassland restoration treatments 

(Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) ................................................................................. 543

Figure 67. Alternative C treatments in the Garland Prairie proposed RNA (Kaibab NF) .......... 547

Figure 68. Alternative C amendment 3 landscape target and 

threshold analysis (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) .................................................... 558

Figure 69. General locations of MSO threshold habitat on the Kaibab NF ................................ 559

Figure 70. General location of MSO target and threshold habitat treatments 

within the project area (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF) ............................................. 560

Figure 71. Alternative C amendment 1 general locations of MSO target and 

threshold habitat managed from 110 to 150 basal area (Kaibab NF) ........................ 561

Figure 72. Old tree characteristics (Thompson 1940) ................................................................. 645

Figure 73. Old age tree characteristics continued (Thompson 1940) ......................................... 645

Figure 74. Section E density management and stocking guidelines ........................................... 657

Figure 75. Pre-1996 vegetation and prescribed fire projects within the project area.................. 676

Figure 76. General locations of past projects (post-1996) within the project area ..................... 682

Figure 77. General locations of current and ongoing 

projects within or adjacent to the project area ........................................................... 690

Figure 78. General locations of foreseeable projects within or adjacent to the project area ...... 697

Figure 79. Relative, post-treatment forest density across the 4FRI project area, alternative C .. 703

Figure 80. RU boundaries within the 4FRI project area ............................................................. 706

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of alternatives analyzed in detail .................................................................. vi

Table 2. Summary of forest plan amendments by alternative and theme ................................. viii

Table 3. Canopy openness (classification percent of interspace) by restoration unit ................ 10

Table 4. Existing VSS distribution within goshawk LOPFA .................................................... 12

Table 5. VSS distribution within goshawk PFA habitat ............................................................ 13

Table 6. Existing and desired conditions for goshawk habitat components .............................. 13

Table 7. Existing and desired habitat components within MSO habitats .................................. 14

Table 8. Ponderosa pine old growth allocation 

acres and percent by forest and restoration unit .......................................................... 15

Table 9. Pinyon-juniper old growth allocation acres and percent by forest .............................. 16

Table 10. Existing ponderosa pine beetle hazard rating (percent of area in each RU) ................ 18

Table 11. Existing dwarf mistletoe infection level by restoration unit (RU) .............................. 18

Table 12. Existing and desired fire potential in ponderosa pine in the project area .................... 24

Table 13. Existing and desired fire regime condition class ponderosa pine ................................ 25

Table 14. Forest plan management areas (MA), geographic 

areas (GA), and land use zones (LUZ) within the project area ................................... 31
Contents

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xvii

Table 15. Large tree retention strategy and large tree implementation plan crosswalk ............... 60

Table 16. Alternative B–D springs, channels, and roads adaptive management actions............. 65

Table 17. Alternative B mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres ......... 71

Table 18. Alternative B through D road activity miles by restoration unit (RU) ........................ 74

Table 19. Alternative B through D springs, riparian, 

ephemeral streams, and aspen activities by restoration unit (RU) ............................... 74

Table 20. Alternative B treatments in goshawk habitat ............................................................... 77

Table 21. Alternative B summary of treatments in Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat ........... 77

Table 22. Alternative B–D ponderosa pine old growth 

allocation acres and percent by forest and restoration unit.......................................... 79

Table 23. Alternative B–D pinyon-juniper old growth 

allocation acres and percent by forest and restoration unit.......................................... 79

Table 24. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres ......... 83

Table 25. Alternative C treatments in goshawk habitat ............................................................... 86

Table 26. Alternative C Treatments in Mexican spotted owl (MSO) Habitat ............................. 86

Table 27. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres ......... 90

Table 28. Alternative D treatments in goshawk habitat .............................................................. 93

Table 29. Alternative D treatments in MSO habitat .................................................................... 93

Table 30. Summary of alternatives analyzed in detail ................................................................. 95

Table 31. Comparison of alternatives .......................................................................................... 96

Table 32. Alternatives A–D soil disturbance and erosion by 

treatment area and aggregate of 6th code watershed by alternative ............................ 112

Table 33. Soil condition and productivity environmental consequences by alternative............. 113

Table 34. Comparison of effects to watershed function by alternative ...................................... 113

Table 35. Total cumulative effects analysis area 6th code (acres) by alternative ....................... 121

Table 36. Acres of vegetation cover types by restoration unit (RU) in the project area ........... 122

Table 37. MSO habitat stratification within the analysis area (acres by RU) ........................... 123

Table 38. Northern goshawk habitat stratification within the analysis area (acres by RU) ....... 124

Table 39. Alternatives A–D comparison of canopy density and openness ................................ 125

Table 40. Comparison of alternatives relative to attaining interspaces and tree groups (acres) 126

Table 41. Goshawk forest structure and habitat components in 2020 and 2050 in all RUs ...... 127

Table 42. Forest structure desired conditions in goshawk habitat across alternatives .............. 128

Table 43. Stocking guides to meet tree group canopy cover requirements 

within goshawk habitat areas outside of PFAs (LOPFA) .......................................... 129

Table 44. Stocking guides to meet tree group canopy 

cover requirements within goshawk PFAs ................................................................ 130

Table 45. Alternative A–D in 2020 and 2050 VSS distribution for 

goshawk LOPFA even-aged and uneven-aged stands (percent of area) .................... 132

Table 46. Alternatives A–D 2020 and 2050 VSS distribution for 

goshawk PFA even-aged and uneven-aged stands (percent of area) ......................... 133

Table 47. Alternative A–D MSO habitat forest structure and 

habitat components projected to the years 2020 and 2050** .................................... 137

Table 48. Alternative A–D 2020 and 2050 bark beetle hazard rating ....................................... 139

Table 49. Alternative A–D 2020 and 2050 dwarf mistletoe infection level by alternative ....... 140

Table 50. Alternatives B, C, and D residual tree damage .......................................................... 141

Table 51. Cubic feet of biomass (forest products) by alternative and forest ............................. 142

Table 52. Acres of ground disturbance from road actions in alternatives B, C, and D ............. 142

Table 53. Approximate acres of vegetation management activities 

and wildfire within the project area from 2001 to 2010 ............................................ 146
Contents

xviii DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 54. Approximate acres of present and foreseeable 

vegetation management activities within the project area ......................................... 148

Table 55. Modeled fire type for alternative A (2020) by restoration 

unit* in acres and percent of treatment area .............................................................. 156

Table 56. Alternative A canopy characteristics 2010 to 2050 ................................................... 157

Table 57. Alternative A FRCC 2010 to 2050 in acres and percent ............................................ 157

Table 58. Alternatives B, C, and D landscape scale (treatment area) fire behavior .................. 158

Table 59. Alternatives B–D canopy characteristics for ponderosa pine from 2010 to 2050 ..... 160

Table 60. Alternative B–D surface fuel loadings in ponderosa pine from 2010 to 2050 .......... 161

Table 61. Alternatives B, C, and D FRCC in 2020 and 2050 .................................................... 161

Table 62. Smoke sensitive areas and sensitive receptors .......................................................... 167

Table 63. Areas expected to be impacted by proposed prescribed fire treatments .................... 168

Table 64. Baseline and 2064 goal in 2003 Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for natural conditions ..................................................... 169

Table 65. Threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

sensitive species evaluated in this analysis................................................................ 175

Table 66. Threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

sensitive species not addressed in this analysis ......................................................... 176

Table 67. Predicted fire behavior in existing MSO habitat ....................................................... 180

Table 68. Alternatives B, C, and D miles of road decommissioning in all MSO habitat .......... 185

Table 69. Alternatives B, C, and D road maintenance, temporary 

roads, and reconstruction in MSO habitat in miles ................................................... 186

Table 70. Forest Service sensitive species or habitat occurrence in the project area ................ 194

Table 71. Alternatives B, C, and D sensitive species 

environmental consequences determination .............................................................. 201

Table 72. MIS not analyzed in the analysis ............................................................................... 225

Table 73. MIS analyzed and forestwide current habitat and population trends ........................ 228

Table 74. MIS habitat and population trends by habitat and alternative ................................... 230

Table 75. Area of analysis for cumulative effects by species .................................................... 237

Table 76. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

sensitive species evaluated in this analysis................................................................ 246

Table 77. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and 

MIS species evaluated in this analysis and their affected anvironment .................... 247

Table 78. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

sensitive species environmental consequences .......................................................... 251

Table 79. Treatment area noxious and invasive weeds evaluation ............................................ 256

Table 80. Summary of 4FRI project tribal consultation ............................................................ 266

Table 81. Example of forest products and their traditional use ................................................. 267

Table 82. Population change 1990 to 2010 ............................................................................... 273

Table 83. Per capita income, labor, and nonlabor income, and unemployment ........................ 274

Table 84. Economic contribution of forestry related sectors in the study area ......................... 275

Table 85. Wildland-urban interface, planning area, and westwide (2000) ................................ 276

Table 86. Change in employment and labor income from alternative A ................................... 280

Table 87. Net present value of stewardship contracts ............................................................... 280

Table 88. Past, present, and future Forest Service actions with 

vegetation and/or fuels treatments within the project area ........................................ 301

Table 89. Combined acres treated under current project and 

past, present, and foreseeable projects....................................................................... 301

Table 90. 4FRI DEIS Coconino and Kaibab NF preparers and contributors ............................ 333
Contents

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xix

Table 91. Summary of forest plan amendments by alternative and theme ................................ 439

Table 92. Alternative B Amendment 1 Current and 

Proposed MSO Forest Plan Language (Coconino NF) ............................................. 445

Table 93. Alternative B amendment 1 management area acres (Coconino NF) ....................... 458

Table 94. Alternative B Amendment 2 Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa 

Pine with an Open Reference Condition in Goshawk Habitat (Coconino NF) ......... 460

Table 95. Alternative B amendment 2 management area acres (Coconino NF) ....................... 467

Table 96. Alternative B amendment 3 effect 

determination for cultural resources (Coconino NF) ................................................. 469

Table 97. Alternative B amendment 1 – management of canopy cover and ponderosa 

pine with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Kaibab NF) .................. 476

Table 98. Alternative B amendment 2 geographic area acres ................................................... 483

Table 99. Alternative B amendment 2 MSO proposed 

forest plan standard and guideline language (Kaibab NF) ........................................ 485

Table 100. Alternative B Kaibab NF amendment 2 GA acres .................................................... 498

Table 101. Alternative C amendment 1 MSO current and 

proposed forest plan language (Coconino NF) .......................................................... 503

Table 102. Alternative C MSO amendment 1 management area acres ....................................... 519

Table 103. Alternative C amendment 2 management of canopy cover and ponderosa 

pine with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Coconino NF) .............. 522

Table 104. Alternative C Amendment 2 MA Acres ..................................................................... 529

Table 105. Alternative C amendment 3 effect determination for cultural resources ................... 531

Table 106. Alternative C amendment 1 – management of canopy cover and ponderosa 

pine with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Kaibab NF) .................. 538

Table 107. Alternative C amendment 1 geographic area acres (Kaibab NF) .............................. 545

Table 108. Alternative C amendment 2 Kaibab NF proposed 

Garland Prairie Research Natural Area (RNA) ......................................................... 547

Table 109. Alternative C amendment 3 current and proposed forest plan language ................... 550

Table 110. Alternative B Kaibab NF Amendment 2 Geographic Area (GA) Acres .................... 563

Table 111. Alternatives B, C, and D design features, 

best management practices, and mitigation ............................................................... 565

Table 112. Annual implementation checklist .............................................................................. 603

Table 113. Planned acres by treatment type and restoration unit (RU) ....................................... 604

Table 114. NEPA, NFMA, ESA, CFLR Act compliance evaluation .......................................... 607

Table 115. Supporting documentation checklist ......................................................................... 608

Table 116. MSO restricted habitat target/threshold conditions for pine-oak forests ................... 612

Table 117. Restricted other habitat treatment criteria ................................................................. 615

Table 118. Percent of trees, tree groups, and interspaces by treatment intensity (LOPFA) ........ 618

Table 119. LOPFA WUI and UEA treatments stocking guidelines for tree groups .................... 619

Table 120. Interspace percent and width in LOPFA WUI and UEA treatments .......................... 620

Table 121. Percent of area occupied by trees, tree groups, and interspace in LOPFA IT ........... 621

Table 122. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4 to 6 tree groups in LOPFA IT treatments ................. 622

Table 123. Percent and width of interspace in LOPFA IT treatments ......................................... 622

Table 124. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, 

tree groups, and interspace in LOPFA SI treatments ................................................. 623

Table 125. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in LOPFA SI treatments .................................... 624

Table 126. Interspace percent and width LOPFA SI treatments .................................................. 625

Table 127. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4 to VSS 6 tree 

groups in LOPFA pine-sage treatments ..................................................................... 626
Contents

xx DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 128. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, 

tree groups, and interspace in dPFA/PFA UEA treatments ........................................ 629

Table 129. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in dPFA/PFA WUI and UEA treatments ........... 630

Table 130. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA WUI and UEA treatments ..................... 630

Table 131. Percent of area occupied by trees and interspace for dPFA/PFA IT .......................... 632

Table 132. dPFA/PFA IT treatments stocking guidelines for VSS 4 – 6 tree groups .................. 632

Table 133. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA IT .......................................................... 633

Table 134. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, 

tree groups, and interspaces in dPFA/PFA SI treatments ........................................... 634

Table 135. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in dPFA/PFA SI treatments ............................... 635

Table 136. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA SI treatments ......................................... 635

Table 137. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4–6 tree groups in dPFA/PFA pine-sage treatments .... 637

Table 138. Minimum structural attributes in suitable goshawk nest stands* .............................. 638

Table 139. Section B decision matrix for establishing 

tree groups, interspace, and regeneration openings ................................................... 642

Table 140. Section E the relationship between treatment 

intensity, tree group density, and overall average density ......................................... 654

Table 141. Monitoring plan tiers ................................................................................................. 660

Table 142. Monitoring scales ...................................................................................................... 661

Table 143. Implementation monitoring questions, indicators, 

frequency of measurement, data source, and cost ..................................................... 663

Table 144. Landscape-scale effectiveness desired conditions, 

indicators, frequency of measurement, data source, and cost.................................... 666

Table 145. Effectiveness monitoring plan ................................................................................... 671

Table 146. Summary of past vegetation and prescribed fire project acres (2000 to 2010) ......... 678

Table 147. Summary of past vegetation and prescribed fire project 

acres (2000 to 2010) adjacent to the project area ...................................................... 681

Table 148. Coconino and Kaibab NF wildfire acres 1940 to 2010 ............................................. 683

Table 149. Acres affected by insect and disease outbreaks by forest (within project area) ........ 685

Table 150. Past treatments on private, State, and other federally managed lands ....................... 686

Table 151. Current and ongoing vegetation (mechanical) and prescribed fire projects .............. 687

Table 152. Current and ongoing other projects ........................................................................... 689

Table 153. Reasonably foreseeable vegetation management/

ground-disturbing projects within and adjacent to the project area ........................... 691

Table 154. Reasonably foreseeable recreation projects within the project area .......................... 693

Table 155. Other agency and private lands 

foreseeable vegetation and prescribed fire projects ................................................... 694

Table 156. Other foreseeable vegetation and prescribed fire projects outside the project area ... 694

Table 157. Acres of treatment and nontreatment areas within the 4FRI project area ................. 699

Table 158. Acres of proposed treatment in terms of post-treatment openness ............................ 701

Table 159. Post-treatment contributions to bridge 

habitat provided by each treatment designation ........................................................ 701

Table 160. Proposed post-treatment openness condition (Percent) by RU ................................. 706

Table 161. Design features, BMPs, and mitigation measures contributing to bridge habitat ...... 710

Table 162. Excerpt from section D of the 4FRI implementation guidelines ............................... 712
Contents

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xxi

List of Acronyms

4FRI Four-Forest Restoration Initiative

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

ADGF Arizona Department of Game and Fish 

APE Area of potential effect

APIF Arizona Partners in Flight

ATV All-terrain vehicle

AUM Animal unit month 

ADGF Arizona Game and Fish Department 

BA Basal area

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BE Biological evaluation

BMP Best management practice

BSTR Breeding season timing restriction

CBD Canopy bulk density 

CBH Canopy base height 

CCF Hundred cubic feet

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFLR Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration

CFLRP Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHU Critical habitat unit

CNF Coconino National Forest 

CO Carbon monoxide 

CWD Coarse woody debris 

CWPP Community wildfire protection plan

d.b.h. Diameter at breast height

DEIS Draft environmental impact statement

dPFA Dispersal post-fledgling area

d.r.c. diameter at root collar

EIS Environmental impact statement

EMA Ecosystem management area

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERT Emission reduction techniques 

FAAWN Forest attributes and wildlife needs

FEIS Final environmental impact statement

FLEA Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis

FRCC Fire regime condition class 
Contents

xxii DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator

GA Geographic area

GFFP Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership

GIS Geographic information system

GPS Global positioning system 

HCI Habitat capability indices

HUC Hydrologic unit code 

IBA Important Bird Areas

IDT Interdisciplinary team

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

IT Intermediate thin

KNF Kaibab National Forest 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LMR Lake Mary Region

LOPFA Landscapes outside post-fledgling area

LTIP Large tree implementation plan 

LTRS Large tree retention strategy

LUZ Land use zones 

MA Management area

MAUM Thousand animal unit month 

MMBF Million board feet

MBF Thousand board feet 

MIS Management indicator species

ML Maintenance level

mph Miles per hour

MRNG Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in 

the Southwestern United States

MSO Mexican spotted owl

MSO PAC Mexican spotted owl protected activity area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Governments 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMED New Mexico Environment Department 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOGO Northern goshawk 

NOI Notice of intent

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring 
Contents

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs xxiii

O2 Ozone 

OGP & LTRS Old growth protection and large tree retention strategy

OTIP Old tree implementation plan

PA Participating agreement

PAC Protected activity center

PFA Northern goshawk post-fledgling family area

PIF Partners in Flight

PJ Pinyon-juniper 

PM Particulate matter

PNVT Potential natural vegetation type

PPC Potential plant community

QMD Quadratic mean diameter

RAP Roads analysis process

RNA Research natural area

ROD Record of decision

ROS Recreation opportunity spectrum 

ROW Right-of-way

RU Restoration uunit 

RVD Recreation visitor day

SDI Stand density index 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SI Stand improvement

SIO Scenery integrity objectives

SMS Scenery Management System

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SOPA Schedule of proposed actions

SPCC Soil prevention control and countermeasures

SSM Single sample maxim

SU Subunit 

SUDS Special Uses Database System

TAP Travel analysis process

TCP Traditional cultural properties 

TES — soils term Terrestrial ecosystem survey

TES species —biological term Threatened, endangered and sensitive species

TM Travel management

TMR Travel Management Rule

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TPA Trees per acre

UEA Uneven-aged 

UGM Upper Gila Mountain

UGM RU Upper Gila Mountain Recovery Unit 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Contents

xxiv DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

USDI United States Department of the Interior

UTV Utility task vehicle

VMS Visual Management System

VQO Visual quality objectives

VSS Vegetation structural stages

WCF Watershed condition framework

WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project

WFLC Western Forest Leadership Coalition 

WFUD Wildlife fish user day

WUI Wildland-urban interface 
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 1 

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

We have prepared this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and other relevant 

Federal and State laws and regulations. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts to the biological, physical, and social resources that may occur from implementing 

restoration activities are disclosed in this DEIS.

This document is organized as follows: 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes information 

on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and 

our proposal for achieving the purpose and need. This section also details how 

we informed the public, how the public responded, and how collaboration was 

used to develop the proposal.

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides 

a more detailed description of our proposed action, how the action alternatives 

were developed, as well as alternative methods considered for achieving the 

stated purpose. This section also provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This 

chapter describes the current condition and predicted environmental effects of 

accomplishing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is 

organized by resource area.

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

preparers, individuals, and agencies consulted during development of the 

environmental impact statement.

Glossary: This section provides an explanation of terms and acronyms used in 

the document.

References: This section provides a list of scientific literature used to inform the 

analysis.

Appendix: The appendix consists of multiple parts and provides detailed 

information to support the analysis: a placeholder for a map packet (appendix A);

proposed forest plan amendments (appendix B); project design features, best 

management practices (BMPs), and mitigation (appendix C); the implementation 

plan (appendix D); the monitoring and adaptive management plan (appendix E); 

cumulative effects (appendix F); and wildlife bridge habitat analysis (appendix 

G). 

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. 

Additional documentation, including the complete analysis for each resource, may be found in the 

project record located at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 1824 South 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

2 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Thompson Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. All specialist reports are also posted on the 4FRI Web site 

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri. 

Project Overview 

The Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is a planning effort designed to restore ponderosa 

pine forest resiliency and function across four national forests in Arizona including the Coconino, 

Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves, and Tonto (figure 1). 

Figure 1. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) vicinity map
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 3 

The EIS project boundary is approximately 988,674 acres and includes the Coconino National 

Forest (hereafter referred to as Coconino NF) and Kaibab National Forest (hereafter referred to as 

Kaibab NF) (figure 2). This analysis is independent of any preceding or subsequent 

environmental analysis that may occur across northern Arizona. 

Figure 2. EIS project boundary on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests

The Forest Service is proposing to conduct restoration activities on approximately 587,923 acres 

of the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF. Of this total, approximately 356,115 acres would be treated 

on the Coconino NF and 231,809 acres would be treated on the Kaibab NF. Restoration actions 

would focus on the Flagstaff district with fewer acres included on the Mogollon Rim and Red 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

4 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Rock districts of the Coconino NF. On the Kaibab NF, activities would occur on the Williams and 

Tusayan districts (figure 3).

Figure 3. Coconino NF and Kaibab NF ranger districts within the project area

Project Location

Within the 988,764-acre project area, approximately 380,000 acres were excluded from this 

proposal. Excluded areas include about 204, 957 acres that are being analyzed in separate 

environmental analyses; approximately 30,000 acres that are located in special areas that include 

designated wilderness, inventoried roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 5 

areas; and over 145,000 acres that are non–Forest Service administered lands. The project area is 

entirely located within Coconino County. 

Due to the size of the project area, the Forest Service utilized a strategy developed by the 4FRI

stakeholders and stratified the landscape into six restoration units (figure 4). A restoration unit 

(RU) is a contiguous geographic area that ranges from about 46,000 acres to 333,000 acres in 

size.

RU 1 includes portions of the Flagstaff, Mogollon, and Red Rock districts (Coconino NF). RU 1 

is generally located south of I-40 and east of I-17. RU 3 includes portions of the Williams district 

(Kaibab NF), Flagstaff, and Red Rock districts (Coconino NF) and is generally located south of I40 and west of I-17. RU 4 includes portions of the Flagstaff district and Williams district. It is 

generally located north of I-40 and west of Highway 180. 

Figure 4. Restoration units (RU) within the project area 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

6 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Communities in the vicinity of the proposed treatments include Flagstaff, Munds Park, Mormon 

Lake, Tusayan, and Williams, Arizona. RU 5 is located north of I-40 and east of Highway 180 

and includes landmarks such as Mount Elden. RU 6 lies immediately south of, and adjacent to, 

Grand Canyon National Park. RU 6 entirely encompasses the Tusayan district on the Kaibab NF. 

RU 2 is located west of I-17 and south of the Mogollon Rim (see figure 4). RU 2 was removed 

from this analysis because the vegetation is not contiguous pine. 

Figure 5. Restoration subunits within the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 7 

The project area was further stratified into several subunits that range from 4,000 to 109,000 

acres in size (figure 5). Both units (RU and subunits) are based on 6th code watershed boundaries, 

State and forest transportation systems, and the forest’s administrative boundaries. Each resource 

specialist determined how best to use the restoration units and subunits in their analysis. Some 

analysis scales were selected to meet forest plan requirements (see individual resource sections in 

chapter 3).

4FRI Background

The 4FRI proposal is a result of several years of planning and collaboration among interested 

parties, groups and organizations, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The focus 

has been to restore forest landscapes and reduce the potential for severe fire effects in a manner 

that benefits the local economy. In 2007, the Arizona Forest Health Council completed the 

“Statewide Strategy to Restore Arizona’s Forests.” The strategy’s vision integrates knowledge and 

experience from science, community collaboration, and economics to identify the necessary steps 

to increase the rate and effectiveness of forest restoration across Arizona. 

The communities that surround the four national forests engaged in the 4FRI project are 

economically and social diverse. Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties 

have economic bases in consumptive industries, agriculture, tourism, and services to retirees. 

With this diversity has come an increasingly divergent vision of how to manage public lands and 

how to respond to the threat of uncharacteristic wildland fires. While the stakeholders may not 

always agree, there is strength in having stakeholders who can provide a wide range of potential 

solutions when working with the Forest Service. 

In February 2008, based on recommendations within the statewide 

strategy, the “Analysis of Small Diameter Wood Supply in Northern 

Arizona” (Hampton et al. 2008) report was completed. This process 

demonstrated a level of “social agreement” on how much, where, and 

under what basic parameters mechanical treatment, as one restoration 

tool, could be used to accelerate restoration of the 2.4 million-acre 

ecosystem. In 2008, the Kaibab NF launched the Kaibab Forest Health 

Focus, a science-based, collaborative effort to guide future landscapelevel forest restoration efforts.

In order to further advance collaborative efforts and secure the 

necessary assistance, the Forest Service created a task force to work 

with the Forest Health Council. The purpose of the task force was to 

identify alternative approaches to accelerating forest restoration in 

northern Arizona. In order to move into on-the-ground implementation 

as quickly as possible, stakeholders representing individuals, State and 

Federal agencies, local governments, the four national forests in 

northern Arizona, and the Forest Service’s Southwestern Regional Office moved forward with the 

four-forest initiative. The initiative received funding via the CFLR Act in 2010. 

In 2009, Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act authorized funding for the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLR) to support landscape-scale restoration 

on National Forest System lands. CFLR objectives include reducing uncharacteristic wildfire and 

the associated management costs, supporting local and collaborative partnerships, supporting 

4FRI History

Statewide Strategy to 

Restore Arizona’s Forests 

(2007)

Analysis of Small 

Diameter Wood Supply in 

Northern Arizona (2008)

Kaibab Forest Health 

Focus (2008)

Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration 

Fund (CFLR) (2009)

Landscape Restoration 

Strategy For The First 

Analysis Area (2010)
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

8 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

monitoring of restoration efforts, and supporting efforts that utilize forest products that benefit 

communities and offset treatment costs. 

Also in 2010, stakeholders began refining their vision for ponderosa pine forest restoration. 

Stakeholders developed a comprehensive landscape restoration strategy for the Coconino NF and 

Kaibab NF, which documented existing conditions, potential treatment areas, and desired posttreatment conditions. The Forest Service used the stakeholder’s “Landscape Restoration Strategy

for the First Analysis Area” report (4FRI Stakeholders 2010) to inform the purpose and need and 

proposed action for this project.

While the 4FRI analysis has been in development, other broad-scale planning efforts have been 

underway. The Forest Service requires that forest plans for individual forests be revised every 10 

to 15 years. The Coconino NF forest plan was issued in 1987 and the Kaibab NF forest plan was 

issued in 1988. Although the plans are 24 to 25 years old, Congress has provided exemptions for 

older plans. The efforts to revise these plans began in 2006. The Kaibab NF issued their draft EIS 

and forest plan in April of 2012, with a final revised plan expected in late spring of 2013. The 

Coconino NF is scheduled to release their draft documents in the spring of 2013, with an 

expected final to follow a year later. This 4FRI draft EIS is consistent with the current forest plans 

as amended, including the project specific amendments proposed in appendix B of this document. 

Since the draft 4FRI and plan revision documents have been developed essentially concurrently,

consistent coordination and a great deal of alignment exists between the desired conditions and 

drivers of the three efforts. The timing of the release of the final documents will determine the 

description of how the 4FRI will achieve the consistency requirements. To the extent there is any 

inconsistency with a current or revised plan adopted prior to the final decision on the 4FRI 

project, appropriate project specific plan amendments consistent with those proposed in appendix 

B of this document will be made at the time of the final decision. 

Likewise, the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) recovery plan has been undergoing revision. The 

original MSO recovery plan was issued in 1995. After years of experience with implementation, 

the need to improve the MSO recovery plan was recognized by the FWS. The “Mexican Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision” (USDI 2012) was released in December 2012. While the 

current DEIS addresses the recommendations of the 1995 MSO recovery plan, it also has been 

developed with continuous coordination with the FWS and is in alignment with the final MSO 

recovery plan. 

Project Record

All documents used in the decisionmaking process for this project are in the project record 

located at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office and most are available for public 

review.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for proposing an action was determined by comparing the objectives and 

desired conditions in the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF land and resource management plans 

(forest plans) to the existing conditions related to forest resiliency and forest function. Where plan 

information was dated or not explicit, local research and the best available science were utilized. 

The results of the comparison are displayed in narrative, tables, and photographs in this chapter. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 9 

The purpose of the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest health, 

and vegetation composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest resiliency and 

sustainability, protect soil productivity, and improve soil and watershed function. Resiliency

increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest to survive natural disturbances such as fire,

insect and disease, and climate change (FSM 2020.5). The project is expected to move almost 

600,000 acres toward comprehensive, landscape-scale restoration with benefits that include 

improved forest function and health, vegetation biodiversity, wildlife habitat, soil productivity, 

watershed function, and reduced risk of severe fire effects. 

Existing and Desired Conditions

Forest Structure and Spatial Pattern

This analysis utilizes canopy density and openness, the relationship of vegetation structural stage 

(VSS) to age/size class and diversity, stand density and key habitat components, and old growth 

as criteria to describe existing and desired conditions for forest structure and spatial pattern in the 

project area.

Tree Density and Canopy Openness

A characteristic of historic Southwest ponderosa pine forests was the grass/forb/shrub (interspace) 

interspersed among small groups of trees. This interspace typically comprised a large portion of 

the landscape (Woolsey 1911, Cooper 1960, White 1985, Pearson 1950, Covington et a1. 1997, 

Abella and Denton 2009). Low-severity fires occurred every 2 to 22 years and maintained an 

open canopy structure (Weaver 1951, Cooper 1960, Swetnam 1990, Swetnam and Baison 1990, 

Fulé et al. 1997a, Covington et al. 1997, Heinlein et al. 2005, Fulé et al. 2003). Typical historical 

tree groups ranged from 0.1 to 0.75 acre in size and comprised 2 to 40 plus trees per group (White 

1985, Fulé et al. 2003, Covington et al. 1997). Others have described historical ponderosa pine 

forests as having low tree density, open, savanna-like stands consisting of groups of pine trees 

interspersed with grassy or shrubby openings (White 1985). For this analysis, the term 

“openness” is used to convey the percentage of the forested area that is grass/forb/shrub 

interspace. It is often used interchangeably with the term “canopy density.”.

In contrast to having a ponderosa pine ecosystem consisting of groups of trees mixed with 

interspaces, approximately 74 percent of the ponderosa pine forest type within the project area is 

departed from historical reference conditions1

. Table 3 displays the existing percent of interspace 

(openness) in the project area by restoration unit2

. Openness (percent of interspace) ranges from 

very open/open to closed. Stand data was used to generate figure 6. 

 

1

 Reference condition is defined as the condition due to site, ecology, and natural disturbance regime.

2

 Determining openness is best accomplished thru aerial imagery analysis. At present, this sort of analysis 

is only available for a small portion of the project area. In the absence of a detailed aerial imagery 

analysis, we determined that stand data was an appropriate substitute to classify the continuous canopy 

conditions that currently exist within the project area. Therefore, the current openness within the project 

area was determined using the canopy density measurements described in the silviculture specialist report 

(see page 33 and table 10).
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

10 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 3. Canopy openness (classification percent of interspace) by restoration unit 

Restoration Unit Acres Very 

Open/Open (%)

Moderately 

Closed (%)

Closed 

(%)

Unknown

(%)

1 145,793 14 28 58 1 

3 129,225 13 25 60 2 

4 134,301 22 34 39 4 

5 61,671 55 24 10 11

6 41,188 30 40 29 2 

All ponderosa pine 512,178 22 29 45 3 

Figure 6. Existing canopy openness within the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 11

Overall, the desired condition is to reestablish non-forested openings that have been invaded by 

ponderosa pine since fire exclusion and reconfigure the forests toward their natural spatial 

pattern. At the fine scale, groups of trees would typically range from 0.1 acre to 1.0 acre in size. 

Tree group size would exceed 1 acre as needed to respond to site-specific conditions including the 

presence of presettlement trees or mature and mid-aged trees that are developing old tree 

characteristics. Tree groups in the mid-age and older structural stages (VSS 4, 5, and 6) would 

have canopies that provide moderate to closed conditions and where canopies are touching, or 

nearly touching, in order to provide connectivity for wildlife that are dependent on this type of 

habitat. 

There would be a mix of very open, open, moderately closed, and closed canopy conditions at the 

landscape (ponderosa pine vegetation) scale. Moderate to closed canopy conditions would be 

widely distributed on the landscape. Habitat for goshawk and MSO, steep slopes, and buffers for 

resources such as bald eagle roosts, other raptor nests, caves, and special designations that would 

not be treated (including wilderness and most research natural areas) provide connectivity with 

moderate to closed canopy conditions. At the landscape scale (extent of ponderosa pine 

vegetation), openness would range from very open (up to 90 percent) within the savanna and 

grassland matrix to closed (as low as 10 percent) on the highly productive forest areas to achieve 

a heterogeneous condition across the landscape.

There is a need to use management strategies that move tree group pattern, interspaces, and 

canopy density toward the natural range of variability (sum of reference conditions) and provide a 

mix of open, moderately closed, and closed canopy conditions at the fine (group) to landscape 

(ponderosa pine vegetation) scale. There is a need to amend the forest plans to provide for 

grass/forb/shrubs (interspace) interspersed among tree groups. 

Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) – Age and Size Class Diversity

Vegetation structural stage (VSS) is a 

method of describing forest age and tree 

size from seedling to old forests. The VSS 

classification is based on the tree size class 

with the highest square foot of basal area

and is an indication of the dominant tree 

diameter distribution. A group of trees with 

a single age class is considered even-aged 

while a group of trees with multiple age 

classes is uneven-aged.

Forest resiliency and diversity is dependent 

on the distribution of age and size classes

and the capacity of an area. Currently, over 

50 percent of the forested acres in the 

project area lacks age and size class 

diversity and is in an even-aged structure. This has resulted in a homogenous landscape with 

reduced resiliency. Reduced resiliency is expressed as the increased potential for severe effects 

from wildfire, increased stand density related mortality, reduced resiliency to bark beetle attack, 

increased dwarf mistletoe spread, and reduced understory productivity. Figure 7 displays a dense, 

even-aged forest structure that is common throughout the project area. 

Figure 7. Even-aged forest structure common 

throughout the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

12 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Goshawk Habitat

The project area has approximately 369,033 acres of goshawk habitat outside of post-fledgling 

family areas (PFA). Forest plan direction for lands outside post-fledgling family areas (LOPFA) is 

to have uneven-aged conditions with a diversity of VSS distributed across the landscape (see 

table 4). Diversity in age and size classes (VSS) represents specific habitat components that are 

needed for goshawk prey species. An imbalance potentially decreases the ability of goshawks to 

maintain their numbers over time.

Even-aged stand conditions occur on approximately 46 percent of the LOPFA habitat with 

approximately 54 percent in uneven-aged stand conditions (see silviculture report, table 80). 

Although the uneven-aged stand condition partially meets forest plan direction, the desired 

balance of VSS classes is lacking as displayed in table 4. In all stands, the young and mid-aged 

forest structural stages are surplus, and the grass/forb/shrub, seedling/sapling, mature, and old 

forest stages are deficit relative to forest plan direction. The desired condition is to move evenaged stands to an uneven-aged structure and move all stands toward the forest plan’s VSS percent 

distribution. 

Table 4. Existing VSS distribution within goshawk LOPFA

Vegetation Structural 

Stage (VSS)

Tree Diameter 

(d.b.h.*)

Even-Aged 

Stands 

Existing 

Percent of 

Area

Un-even Aged 

Stands 

Existing 

Percent of 

Area

Forest Plan 

Desired VSS

Percent 

Distribution

1 – Grass/Forb/Shrubs 0.0 – 0.9′′ 8 0 10

2 – Seedling/Sapling 1.0 – 4.9′′ 0 2 10

3 – Young Forest 5.0 – 12′′ 36 35 20

4 – Mid-age Forest 12.0 – 17.9′′ 47 32 20

5 – Mature Forest 18.0 – 23.9′′ 8 14 20

6 – Old Forest 24′′+ 1 17 20

*diameter at breast height

Forest Structure – Post-fledgling Family Areas (PFA) 

There is approximately 30,600 acres of goshawk PFA habitat in the project area. PFAs consist of 

nest sites and adjacent habitat most likely to be used by fledglings during their early development. 

This category also includes dispersal PFAs (or dPFA) which is unoccupied suitable habitat within 

a 2 to 2.5-mile range of a PFA. 

Almost 90 percent of PFAs are even-aged stands dominated by the young and mid-aged forest 

structural stages with very little representation of the other structural stages. VSS 3 and 4 are 

overrepresented and VSS 1, 2, 5, and 6 are deficit (table 5). Outside of nest stands, the desired 

condition is to have an uneven-aged forest structure that represents all age classes (USDA 1987, 

USDA 1988).
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 13

Table 5. VSS distribution within goshawk PFA habitat

Vegetation 

Structural Stage 

(VSS)

Tree Diameter 

(d.b.h.*)

Even-Aged 

Stands 

Percent of Area

Uneven-aged 

Stands

Percent of 

Area

Forest Plan 

Desired 

Percent 

Distribution

1 – Grass/Forb/Shrubs 0.0 – 0.9′′ 3 0 10

2 – Seedling/Sapling 1.0 – 4.9′′ 1 1 10

3 – Young Forest 5.0 – 12′′ 35 34 20

4 – Mid-age Forest 12.0 – 17.9′′ 52 39 20

5 – Mature Forest 18.0 – 23.9′′ 8 15 20

6 – Old Forest 24′′+ 1 11 20

*d.b.h. is diameter at breast height

Stand Density and Key Habitat Components

One of the major factors affecting forest structure and development is inter-tree competition. 

High forest densities result in increased inter-tree competition. Measures of forest density include 

basal area, trees per acre, and stand density index (SDI). Basal area (BA) is the cross-sectional 

area of all trees, measured in square feet per acre, and trees per acre (TPA) are simply a count of 

the total number of trees on an acre. SDI is a relative measure of stand density based on the 

number of trees per acre and the mean diameter (Reineke 1933). It is a good indicator of tree 

competition. Based upon established forest density/vigor relationships, density-related mortality 

from competition begins to occur once the forest reaches 45 to 50 percent of maximum stand 

density. Mortality is likely to occur at density levels over 60 percent of maximum stand density 

(Long 1985). 

Table 6 displays that both SDI and BA are above the desired condition, which means much of the 

goshawk habitat is currently at risk from density-related mortality. The table also displays 

existing and desired conditions for snags and coarse woody debris (CWD), two key components 

of wildlife habitat. The project area is deficit in snags and does not meet desired conditions for 

CWD. The desired condition is to reduce the potential for density-related mortality and have 

stand densities at levels that facilitate forest health. Stand densities allow for overall forest 

development, tree vigor, and resilience to characteristic disturbances. In addition to stand density, 

there is a need to move toward forest plan desired conditions for snags and coarse woody debris. 

Table 6. Existing and desired conditions for goshawk habitat components

Habitat Type

and Acres

BA

Average

SDI

% of Maximum

Snags >18′′ 

d.b.h. per Acre

CWD Total Tons 

per Acre

Existing Desired Existing Desired Existing Desired Existing Desired

PFA (30,600) 107 70–80 45 25–40 0.4 2.0 3.9 5–7 

LOPFA (369,033) 96 50–70 40 15–35 0.4 2.0 3.5 5–7 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

14 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Habitat

Forest Structure, Stand Density, and Key Habitat Components

Table 7 displays the existing and desired conditions for structural attributes and habitat 

components within MSO habitats. The components (which include SDI, TPA, CWD, and snags) 

are indicators of nest/roost characteristics as outlined in the forest plans. These components are 

necessary to maintain a suite of prey species for MSO.

Based upon established forest density/vigor relationships, density related mortality begins to 

occur once the forest reaches 45 to 50 percent of maximum stand density, and mortality is likely 

at density levels over 60 percent of maximum stand density (Long 1985). Table 7 displays that all 

MSO habitats exceed the 60 percent-plus maximum stand density. In all MSO habitats, trees 

greater than 18-inch d.b.h. and large snags are deficit from forest plan and MSO recovery plan

desired conditions3

 and CWD requirements are met on less than 10 percent of the habitat.

The desired condition is to improve the quality of MSO nesting and roosting habitat by reducing 

the potential for density related mortality and moving toward forest plan desired conditions for 

trees greater than 18-inch d.b.h., snags, and CWD. There is a need to implement uneven-aged 

management strategies that improve nesting and roosting habitat and reduce the potential loss of 

habitat. There is a need to amend the Coconino NF forest plan to allow treatments that would 

most effectively improve nesting and roosting habitat. 

Table 7. Existing and desired habitat components within MSO habitats

Habitat Type

BA

SDI 

(% of 

Maximum)

Trees 18′′+ 

(per Acre) 

Snags 18′′+ 

(per Acre) 

CWD

>12′′4 

(Tons per 

Acre) 

Existing

Desired

Existing

Desired

Existing

Desired

Existing

Desired

Existing

Desired

Restricted Target/ 

Threshold (8,713 

acres)

162 150–170 85 ≤55 16.3 ≥20 0.5 ≥2.0 1.2 ≥1

Restricted Other 

(67,378 acres) 137 70–90 69 25–40 11.5 ≥20 0.4 2.0 0.5 ≥1

Protected (36,455 

acres) 155 NA 78 ≤55 14.9 NA .6 ≥2.0 0.8 ≥1

Forest Structure – Old Growth

Old growth guidelines for both forests state, “All analyses should be at multiple scales—one scale 

above and one scale below the ecosystem management areas” (USDA 1987, USDA 1988). Given 

 

3 No specific desired conditions exist for snags in the 12-inch to 18-inch category in MSO habitat.

4 A ponderosa pine log 8 feet long and 12 inches in diameter, as described in the forest plans, is about 1/3 

of 1 ton. Managing for greater than a ton should, on average, meet forest plan requirements. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 15

the size of this project, scales of analysis based on existing divisions of the landscape developed 

specifically for this project were utilized. The smallest scale is represented at the stand level with 

stands averaging less than 100 acres in size. The ecosystem management area (EMA) is the 

restoration subunit. Subunits range in size from 4,000 to 109,000 acres. The scale above the EMA 

is the restoration unit, which ranges in size from 46,000 to 335,000 acres. 

There are approximately 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine in the project area. Of this total, 

194,804 acres (38 percent) are the closest to meeting old growth conditions. Currently, all 

restoration units meet or exceed the 20 percent minimum forest plan requirement. Table 8

displays ponderosa pine old growth allocations by restoration unit/forest for all the ponderosa 

pine within the 4FRI analysis area as well as ponderosa pine within other areas within the project 

area that were analyzed in separate vegetation analysis (see silviculture area of analysis 

discussion). 

Old growth allocations are based on current conditions within the project area along with forest 

plan specific management direction. Most sites currently do not fully meet the minimum criteria 

for old growth conditions as listed in the forest plans. However, the habitat types noted below are 

closest to meeting old growth conditions. This approach is consistent with forest plan direction, 

which states: “strive to create or sustain as much old growth compositional, structural, and 

functional flow as possible over time at multiple-area scales...and seek to develop or retain oldgrowth function on at least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by forest type in any 

landscape” (USDA 1987, USDA 1988). 

The old growth allocation acreage/percentage for ponderosa pine includes 100 percent of MSO

protected habitat, 100 percent of MSO target/threshold habitat, 40 percent of MSO restricted 

habitat that is uneven-aged with low dwarf mistletoe infection, and 80 percent of MSO restricted 

habitat that is even-aged and mid-aged to old with low dwarf mistletoe infection. In goshawk 

habitat, the old growth allocation acreage/percentage for ponderosa pine includes 100 percent of 

goshawk nest stands, 40 percent of goshawk PFA and foraging areas that are uneven-aged with 

low dwarf mistletoe infection, and 80 percent of goshawk PFA and foraging areas that are evenaged and mid-aged to old with low dwarf mistletoe infection. 

Table 8. Ponderosa pine old growth allocation acres and percent by forest and restoration 

unit

RU

Ponderosa Pine Total Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Ponderosa Pine Old Growth 

Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Old Growth 

Percent (%)

Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

1 (145,793/46,952)

192,745 NA (65,189/11,130)76,319 NA 40 NA

3 (58,327/29,176)

87,503

(70,898/57,886)

128,784

(21,341/10,894)

32,235

(25,177/13,746)

38,923 37 30
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

16 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

RU

Ponderosa Pine Total Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Ponderosa Pine Old Growth 

Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Old Growth 

Percent (%)

Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

4 (56,981/5,941)

62,922

(77,320/14,089)

91,409

(17,718/1,965)

19,683

(30,342/2,140)

32,482 31 36

5 (61,671/40,686)

102,357 NA (24,745/7,469)

32,214 NA 31 NA

6 NA (41,188/7,450)

48,638 NA (10,291/1,490)11,781 NA 24

Total (322,772/122,755)

445,527

(189,407/79,425)

268,832

(128,994/31,458)

160,452

(65,810/17,376)

83,186 36 31

There are approximately 23,316 acres of pinyon-juniper within the 4FRI project area and 

approximately 6,218 acres of pinyon-juniper that have been allocated in other vegetation 

analyses. The old growth allocation in pinyon-juniper totals 29,534 acres (table 9) and includes 

those sites/acres that are closest to the minimum criteria for old growth conditions (per the forest 

plan). The allocation equates to 68 percent on the Coconino NF and 58 percent on the Kaibab NF. 

Table 9. Pinyon-juniper old growth allocation acres and percent by forest

RU

Ponderosa Pine Total Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Ponderosa Pine Old 

Growth Acres

(4FRI/Other Projects)

Total

Old Growth Percent 

(%)

Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

1 (1,141/2,135)

3,276 NA (611/447)

1,058 NA 32 NA

3 (832/0)

832

(3,201/3,533)

6,734

(356/0)

356

(1,747/2,245)

3,992 43 59

4 (42/0)

42

(7,123/0)

7,123

(42/0)

42

(4,116/0)

4,116 100 58

5 (8,771/0)

8,771

NA

0 

(7,302/0)

7,302

NA

0 83 NA

6 NA (2,206/550)

2,756 NA (1,452/110)

1,562 NA 57

Total (10,786/2,135)

12,921

(12,530/4,083)

16,613

(8,311/447)

8,758

(7,315/2,355)

9,670 68 58

Figure 8 displays the general locations of ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper in the project area 

that are closest to meeting old growth conditions. In both ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper, the 

desired condition is to allocate sites that best meet old growth conditions and manage those sites 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 17

toward old growth structural attributes. Where management occurs within ponderosa pine and 

pinyon-juniper cover type, there is a need to maintain the old growth characteristics within the

sites allocated as old growth.

Figure 8. Ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper stands that best meet old growth conditions

Forest Health – Insect and Disease

Bark Beetle

Forest health is defined by the vigor and condition of the forest stands (see previous discussion on 

stand density) and the presence of insects and disease that affect the sustainability of the forest. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

18 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Ponderosa pine is attacked and killed by several different bark beetles in the genera Dendroctonus

and Ips. Approximately 8 percent of the ponderosa pine analysis area has a low bark beetle hazard 

rating, while 21 percent of the area has a moderate rating, and the remaining 71 percent has a high 

bark beetle hazard rating (table 10). Areas with a low or moderate hazard rating would be 

expected to be resistant to successful bark beetle attack and large-scale mortality.

Table 10. Existing ponderosa pine beetle hazard rating (percent of area in each RU)

Hazard 

Rating RU 1 RU 3 RU 4 RU 5 RU 6 Analysis Area Acres/Percent of Total

Low 3 6 8 25 0 38,903/8

Moderate 12 11 27 46 25 106,734/21

High 85 83 64 29 75 366,542/71

Dwarf Mistletoe

Dwarf mistletoe infection in ponderosa pine is common throughout the project area. Mistletoe 

infected trees slowly weaken, experience growth loss, and eventually die (Lynch et al. 2008). 

Approximately 66 percent of the area is not infected or has a low infection level (with less than 

20 percent of the trees infected). Thirty-four percent of the area is moderately infected (20 to 50 

percent of the trees infected) or heavily infected (50 to 80 percent of the ponderosa pine infected). 

The average range of infection is from 4 to 10 percent in the none/low infection level group and 

33 to 42 percent in the moderate/high infection level group (table 11). Several stands have an 

extreme infection rating where 80 percent or more of the trees are infected.

Table 11. Existing dwarf mistletoe infection level by restoration unit (RU)

Infection Level RU 1 RU 3 RU 4 RU 5 RU 6 Percent of 

Analysis Area

None/Low – Percent of Area 52 57 73 91 82 66

None/Low –Average Percent 

Trees Infected

5 6 4 10 5 6 

Moderate/High –Percent of Area 47 43 26 9 18 34

Moderate/High – Average Percent 

Trees Infected

37 33 38 41 42 36

Extreme – Percent of Area 1 <1 <1 0 0 <1

Extreme – Average Percent Trees 

Infected

88 93 90 – – 89 

The desired condition is to move toward a forest structure that would allow beetles and dwarf 

mistletoe to function at naturally occurring or historic levels. There is a need to manage insect 

and disease in a manner that reduces, but does not eliminate bark beetle or dwarf mistletoe in 

order to provide nesting, resting, foraging, and catching sites for birds and mammals including 

Abert’s/tassel-eared squirrels.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 19

Vegetation Diversity and Composition

Gambel Oak

Vegetation diversity throughout the project area has declined. Gambel oak, a subtype within 

ponderosa pine, is important to many wildlife species as it provides important nesting and 

foraging habitat. A lack of fire led to increased stand densities of pine and resulted in Gambel oak 

becoming overtopped by fast growing ponderosa pine (figure 9) (Abella and Fulé 2008). The 

desired condition is to develop and maintain a variety of oak size classes and forms where they 

occur. Oak should range from shrubby thickets and pole-sized clumps to large trees across the 

landscape in order to provide habitat for a large number and variety of wildlife species (Brown 

1958, Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998, Abella and Springer 2008, Abella 2008a, Neff et al. 1979). 

There is a need to stimulate new growth, maintain growth in large diameter trees, and use 

management strategies that provide for a variety of shapes and sizes across the landscape. 

Aspen

There are approximately 1,471 acres of aspen in 

the project area. Aspen is dying or rapidly 

declining on both forests due to the combined 

effects of conifer encroachment, browsing, 

insect, disease, severe weather events, and lack 

of fire disturbance (Lynch 2008) (USDA 2009, 

USDA 2008). A study by Fairweather et al. 

(2007) on the Coconino NF indicates that aspen 

on low elevation dry sites (less than 7,500 feet) 

has sustained 95 percent mortality since 2000. 

Mortality on these sites is expected to continue as 

many live trees currently have only 10 to 30 

percent of their original crown. Figure 10

displays an unhealthy aspen stand within the 

project area. The desired condition is to maintain 

and/or regenerate aspen. Where possible, there is a need to stimulate growth and increase 

individual recruitment of aspen. 

Figure 10. Existing condition of aspen near 

Government Prairie, Kaibab NF

Figure 9. Ponderosa pine overtopping of Gambel oak in the 

Bar-M (Coconino NF) portion of the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

20 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Grasslands

There are approximately 48,774 acres of montane/subalpine and Colorado Plateau/Great Basin 

grasslands within the project area. Only 2 percent of the Great Basin grasslands on the Coconino 

NF were historically comprised of very large shrubs, closed canopies, and very large trees.

Currently, this percentage is 19 percent (USDA 2009). Within montane/subalpine grasslands, 

encroachment has increased from 0 to 33 percent (USDA 2009). Conifers on the Kaibab NF have 

invaded at least 8 percent of grasslands (USDA 2008). 

Figure 11 and figure 12 display grassland encroachment within the project area over a 100-year 

period. On both forests, the desired condition for grasslands is to move toward the natural range 

of variability. Tree cover would range from 0 to 9 percent, grasses and forbs would dominate and 

fire return intervals would average 10 years (Weaver 1951, Cooper 1960, Swetnam 1990, 

Swetnam and Baison 1996, Fulé et al.1997a, Fulé et al.1997c, Heinlein et al. 2005, Diggins 

2010). Fire would function within its natural fire regime across the landscape without causing 

loss to ecosystem function or to human safety, lives, and values. When fire does occur, it typically 

replaces more than 75 percent of the dominant vegetation type (USDA 2009). There is a need to 

reduce and/or remove tree encroachment, which has reduced the size and function of landscapes 

that were historically grasslands.

Figure 11. Fern Mountain (Hart Prairie) Grassland circa 1880s

Figure 12. Fern Mountain (Hart Prairie) Grassland circa 1980s
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 21

Pine-Sage 

Based on review of the project area, ponderosa pine trees are encroaching and shading out the 

sage on about 5,261 acres. Without treatment, pine density is likely to increase and entirely shade 

out the sage component. The desired condition is to 

restore the historic pattern within the pine-sage

mosaic and manage fire to enhance sage. There is a 

need to remove post-settlement pine that is currently 

overtopping and shading sage. Figure 13 displays 

the post-treatment desired condition. This figure 

portrays an area just south of the town of Tusayan, 

Arizona, approximately 6 years after a low severity 

prescribed fire. 

Forest Resiliency

Fire Behavior

Currently, over 200,000 acres (34 percent) of the 

treatment area has crown fire potential. Crown fire 

generally produces 100 percent mortality in 

ponderosa pine by consuming the crowns of trees.

Additional acres, primarily within or adjacent to 

MSO habitat, are at risk from high intensity surface 

fire that can result in high-severity effects. A high intensity surface fire burning through this area 

could scorch the canopy sufficiently to cause widespread mortality (Van Wagner 1973). Figure 14

displays the current crown and surface fire potential within the project area.

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas are spread across the project area and are located within or 

adjacent to the communities of Flagstaff (RU 1, 3, 4, 5), Williams (RU 3, 4), Tusayan (RU 6), 

Parks (RU 3, 4), Belmont (RU 3, 4), and scattered developments such as Doney Park (RU 5), 

Munds Park (RU 1), and Kachina Village (RU 3). Although past fuel treatments have been 

implemented in the WUI closest to the major population centers, much of the landscape is still 

vulnerable to fire or to second order fire effects such as flooding, erosion, weed infestations, and 

damaged infrastructure. 

In addition to WUI, areas at risk include water resources, such as the Lake Mary, Rio de Flag, and 

Bill Williams watersheds. The Lake Mary and Rio de Flag watersheds are a source of water for 

the city of Flagstaff, Arizona. The Bill Williams watershed provides water for the city of 

Williams, Arizona. Other resources at risk from crown fire include a diverse assemblage of 

wildlife that are known to occur or have habitat within or adjacent to the project area. Figure 15

provides a visual comparison between fire risk and some (not all) at-risk resources. Figure 15

displays the location of some resources at risk including the city of Flagstaff, the town of 

Tusayan, other non–Forest Service lands, watersheds, and MSO PACs, for reference with figure

14, which displays fire potential. 

Figure 13. Post-treatment pine-sage 

desired condition (Kaibab NF)
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

22 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 14. Current crown and surface fire potential in the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 23

Figure 15. Locations of resources at risk (for reference with figure 14) 

Canopy Characteristics and Surface Fuels Affecting Fire Behavior

Canopy bulk density and canopy base height are canopy characteristics used to measure the 

potential for crown fire. Higher canopy bulk densities means that fire can easily move through the 

crowns of trees. Higher canopy bulk densities means there are more fuels to burn. With more 

fuels, fire intensity would increase. Approximately 61 percent of the ponderosa pine in the project 

area has a canopy bulk density rating greater than 0.050 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3) . The 

desired condition in ponderosa pine to reduce the potential for crown fire is to have canopy bulk 

density below 0.050 kg/m3. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

24 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The canopy base height of a stand is the lowest height above the ground at which there is a 

sufficient amount of canopy fuel to spread fire vertically into the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt, 

2001). The lower the canopy base height, the easier it is for crown fire to initiate (Van Wagner 

1977). Currently, canopy base heights in the project area average approximately 15 feet. To 

minimize the potential for crown fire initiation, the desired condition is to have average stand 

canopy base height above 18 feet. Table 12 summarizes existing and desired conditions for fire 

risk.

Table 12. Existing and desired fire potential in ponderosa pine in the project area

Evaluation Criteria Existing Condition Desired Condition

Potential crown fire (%) 34 Up to 10

Canopy Base Height (ft.)* 15 >18

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3)* 0.061 <0.050 

Potential surface fire (%) 64 Up to 90

*Stand average across the project area

Surface fuels (as analyzed for fire behavior and effects) include litter, duff, and CWD greater than 

3-inch diameter. High surface fuel loading can result in high-severity effects because they can 

smolder in place for long periods, transferring more heat into soil and tree cambiums. Mechanical 

treatments generally do not remove surface fuels from a treatment area, so they remain a potential 

source of heat (fire effects) and emissions. 

Currently, litter, duff, and CWD average 11 tons per acre. When averaged, the existing surface 

fuels do not exceed recommended surface fuel loading (Brown et al., 2003). However, there are 

areas that exceed desired surface fuel loadings. Most of these areas are near, or associated with, 

MSO habitat (see the fire ecology report).

Overall, the desired condition is to have fire maintain a mosaic of diverse native plant 

communities. In ponderosa pine, no more than 10 percent of the project area should be prone to 

crown fire under modeled conditions, with high severity acres spatially distributed (Swetnam and 

Baison 1996, Roccaforte et al. 2008). In grasslands, no more than 3 percent should be prone to 

crown fire. In this analysis, “crown fire” in grasslands is a reference to crown fire in trees 

growing in the grasslands. In both vegetation types, when crown fire does occur, it should be 

mostly passive crown fire, occurring in single trees, groups, clumps, or areas where there had 

been mortality (wind throw, insects, etc.). High intensity surface fire should be rare with surface 

fuel loadings (including CWD, litter, and duff) ranging between 5 and 20 tons per acre (Brown et 

al. 2003). 

The desired condition is to have fire function as a natural disturbance within the ecosystem

without causing loss to ecosystem function or to human safety, lives, and values. Over time, 

conditions would allow managers to use fire to maintain the area as a functioning ecosystem. 

There is a need to reduce canopy bulk density and raise canopy base height in order to reduce the 

potential for crown fire. In order to reduce the potential for high severity surface fire, there is a 

need to maintain surface fuel loadings that meet desired conditions and reduce excessive surface 

fuel loadings in areas adjacent to and within MSO habitat. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 25

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a coarse-scale evaluation protocol developed to support 

planning and risk assessments (Schmidt et al. 2002, Hann et al. 2004). FRCC assessments 

determine how departed a landscape’s fire regime is from its historic fire regime. It is scaled from

1 to 3, with 3 being the most departed and 1 being the least departed. 

Approximately 59 percent of the project area is in condition class 3. This indicates the fire regime 

is significantly departed from historical ranges (table 13). In condition class 3, the risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is high. Approximately 27 percent of the project area is in FRCC 2, 

indicating the ecosystem is moderately departed from its historical range. The departure in fire 

frequency has resulted in dramatic alterations to fire size, intensity, severity, landscape patterns, 

and/or vegetation attributes. 

The desired condition is to have 100 percent of the project area in FRCC 1. In FRCC 1, fire 

regimes would be within historical ranges and the risk of losing key ecosystem components 

would be low. Vegetation, fuels, and natural disturbances would be intact and functioning within 

historical ranges. There is a need to reduce the percent of the ponderosa pine and grassland 

vegetation in FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 and move the fire regimes toward FRCC 1. 

Table 13. Existing and desired fire regime condition class ponderosa pine

Fire Regime Condition 

Class (FRCC) 

Existing Condition

(percent of total area)

Desired Condition

(percent of total area)

FRCC 1 14 100

FRCC 2 27 0 

FRCC 3 59 0 

Soil Productivity and Watershed Function

Soils

Approximately 85 percent of soils and strata in the project area are in satisfactory soil condition 

and have the ability to resist accelerated erosion. Most strata in the ponderosa pine type currently 

have a closed stand structure and appear to have high canopy covers and densities. This has 

reduced understory forage productivity although there is generally sufficient vegetative ground 

cover to reduce accelerated erosion. Due to the closed stand structure, most soils and strata are at 

risk from the relatively high potential for crown fire (about 86 percent in FRCC 2 and 3). This 

also poses a high risk of moderate or high burn severity effects to the watersheds under normal or 

extreme fire behavior conditions. Fires resulting in moderate or high burn severity pose 

substantial risk to soil productivity, watershed function, and downstream water quality to 

connected stream courses on soils with moderate or high erosion hazard following storm events.

The desired condition is to protect long-term soil productivity by maintaining or improving soil 

condition and function (toward satisfactory). The vegetative ground cover would be adequate to 

protect against accelerated erosion resulting in maintained soil stability and vegetative 

productivity. Soil loss would be below tolerance, and no visible signs of excessive erosion are 

present. Surface soil hydrologic function would be in satisfactory condition with well aggregated, 

granular surface soil structure and tubular pores with sufficient porosity to effectively infiltrate
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

26 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

water. Soil nutrient cycling would be in satisfactory condition. Vegetative ground cover, including 

surface litter and plant basal cover, and herbaceous understory would approach natural conditions 

identified in the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Potential Plant Community Ecological Processes 

and Function” (USDA 1984). 

Watersheds at the 6th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Scale

The project lies within 82 6th code watersheds. The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) 

protocol (USDA 2010a, 2010b) was used to classify watershed conditions at the 6th HUC level 

including 12 watershed indicators. Overall, ponderosa pine vegetation types are dominated by 

functional-at-risk 6th HUC watersheds (about 451,500 acres, or 46 percent of the analysis area); 

with several impaired watersheds (about 316,800 acres, or about 32 percent of the analysis area) 

and a few properly functioning watersheds (about 220,400 acres, or about 22 percent of the 

analysis area).

The desired condition is to have watershed function maintained or improved toward functioning 

properly. Watersheds would exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. Fire regime condition class and tree density would be reduced 

and moving toward FRCC 1 (historical range). Unneeded roads would be decommissioned or 

restored to their natural condition. Soil and riparian condition and function would be improved 

and moving toward satisfactory and properly functioning. 

Springs

Springs play an important role on the landscape 

for hydrological function of watersheds and

they are very important for wildlife and plant 

diversity. They are natural water features that 

existed prior to Euro-American settlement and

were probably functional due to lack of human 

disturbances (USDA 2009). 

Forty-nine developed springs on the Coconino 

NF are not functioning at or near potential and 

25 springs on the Kaibab NF have reduced 

function (MacDonald 2013)

5

. However, springs 

are well represented throughout all the major 

watersheds on the forest. Spring function within 

the project area has been altered by human 

activities including flow regulation through installation of spring boxes and piping of discharge to 

offsite locations, recreational impacts, urbanization, and other construction activities, and grazing

by domestic livestock and wildlife herbivores. As a result, many springs exhibit static or degraded 

conditions (MacDonald 2011). Excessive disturbance can also result in these features becoming 

nonfunctional (USDA 2009). Forty-seven developed springs on the Coconino NF are functioning 

below potential. On the Kaibab NF, 27 springs have reduced function (USDA 2008). 

 

5 Out of 78 total springs within the 4FRI project area, 4 springs were removed from treatment due to lack of 

information. 

Figure 16. Degraded Babbitt Spring on the 

Coconino NF
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 27

Figure 16 is a photo of Babbitt Spring, which has an impaired function. Babbitt Spring is located 

in the Lake Mary watershed on the Flagstaff district (Coconino NF) and is an example of spring 

conditions within the project area. The headcut in the spring outflow, the encroachment of 

ponderosa pine into the spring site, and the lack of riparian vegetation normally associated with a 

functioning riparian site are indicators of impaired fu nction. 

Figure 17 displays Hoxworth Spring in a 

restored condition. This figure provides an 

example of successfully meeting restoration 

desired conditions. Vegetative composition and 

spring outflow has improved. Bank headcutting 

in the spring’s outflow has been addressed and 

tree encroachment that affected spring function

has been removed. The purpose of figure 18 is to 

display protective measures (fencing) that have 

been successfully used in the past to attain 

restoration desired conditions.

The desired condition for springs is to have the 

necessary soil, water, and vegetation attributes to 

be healthy and functioning at or near potential. 

Waterflow patterns, recharge rates, and 

geochemistry would be similar to historic levels 

and persist over time. Water quality and quantity 

would maintain native aquatic and riparian 

habitat and water for wildlife and designated 

beneficial uses, consistent with water rights and 

site capability. Plant distribution and occurrence 

would be resilient to natural disturbances (USDA 

1987). There is a need to improve the condition 

and function of 74 springs in order to sustain 

these features on the landscape. On some 

springs, this means maintaining and promoting 

existing vegetation. On others, there is a need to 

red uce tree encroachment, reduce the presence 

of noxious weeds, and limit the potential for 

future disturbance. On all springs, there is a need 

to return fire, a natural disturbance process, to 

the system.

Ephemeral Streams

Ephemeral streams are important for 

hydrological function of watersheds and provide 

important seasonal habitat for a variety of 

wildlife, in particular, migratory birds and 

dispersing amphibians. Ephemeral streams are 

categorized as riparian or nonriparian. On the 

Coconino NF, approximately 32 miles of 

Figure 19. Degraded ephemeral/riparian 

stream (Coconino NF)

Figure 17. Restored Hoxworth Spring

Figure 18. Hoxworth Springs restoration
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

28 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

ephemeral streams are heavily eroded with excessive bare ground, denuded vegetation, and head 

cuts. Of the total miles, approximately 6 miles are riparian streams and 26 miles are nonriparian 

streams. The Kaibab NF has approximately 7 miles (total) of degraded nonriparian streams. 

Figure 19 shows an active headcut and lateral bank cutting that resulted in accelerated erosion 

rates. This condition is common in the project area.

The desired condition is to restore the functionality of ephemeral streams (USDA 1987). On some 

of the total miles of stream, there is a need to maintain and promote existing vegetation. On 

others, there is a need to reduce tree encroachment, the presence of noxious weeds, and limit the 

potential for future disturbance. On all ephemeral streams, there is a need to return fire, a natural 

disturbance process, to the system.

Figure 20. Restored Hoxworth Spring drainage immediately post-treatment (photo on left) 

and 1 year post-treatment (photo on right)

The left-hand side of figure 20 shows the channel immediately after recontouring. The purpose of 

this figure is to display what restoration is likely to look like in the short term. The right-hand 

side of the figure displays the channel 1 year after treatment. This figure displays the desired 

condition for ephemeral stream restoration.

Roads and Unauthorized Routes

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs have identified the needed road system for public and 

administrative motorized use through the Travel Management Rule (TMR) process (see the 

transportation specialist report for details on forestwide transportation analyses). The TMR process 

identified a need to decommission approximately 770 miles of existing system and unauthorized 

roads on the Coconino NF. On the Kaibab NF, approximately 134 miles of unauthorized roads 

(often referred to as user-created routes) were recommended for decommissioning.

The desired condition is to restore decommissioned road prisms to their natural condition (USDA 

1987, USDA 1988). Soils would be in satisfactory condition so that the soil can resist erosion, 

recycle nutrients, and absorb water. Understory species (e.g., grasses, forbs, and shrubs) diversity 

would be consistent with site potential and provide for infiltration of water and reduction of 

accelerated erosion. The understory would have a variety of heights of cool and warm season 

vegetation. Impacts to wildlife and habitat would be minimized. 

About 2,820 miles of road would be needed to implement the project. Of this total, approximately 

2,297 miles are existing, open roads. However, portions of these existing roads have resource 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 29

concerns, which require maintenance or reconstruction prior to utilizing. In some parts of the 

project area, there are no existing roads that could provide access to treatments, or records and 

field review indicate the roads have been decommissioned in previous projects. For additional 

information, see the transportation inventory in the project record.

There is a need to have adequate access to the project area for implementation. Adequate access 

includes utilizing existing roads and temporarily creating roads that can be returned to their 

natural state (decommissioned) at the completion of project activities. Maintenance, 

reconstruction, and restoration actions would be designed to meet the site-specific condition as 

possible and practicable.

Decision Framework

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs supervisors are the Forest Service officials responsible for 

deciding whether or not to select the preferred alternative (alternative C), select one of the other 

action alternatives (alternative B or D), or select no action (alternative A). Their decision includes 

determining: (1) the location and treatment methods for all restoration activities; (2) design 

criteria, mitigation, and monitoring requirements; (3) the components that will be included in the 

adaptive management plan; (4) the components that will be included in the implementation 

checklist and plan; (5) the estimated products or timber volume to make available from the 

project; and (6) whether the forest plans will be amended as proposed.

Other Planning Efforts 

See pages 7 to 8 for the discussion on the relationship between the revised forest plans and the 

revised MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012) to this analysis. Other restoration activities (actions on 

private, State, and other non-Forest Service lands) that influence/are complementary to this 

analysis are addressed in cumulative effects.

Relationship to the Forest Plans

The Coconino NF and Kaibab NF forest plans set forth in detail the direction for managing the 

land and resources of the forests. The desired conditions for the project are based on forest plan 

objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines. This analysis tiers to each forest’s final EIS (USDA 

1987) (USDA 1988), as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. Best available science was used to 

develop desired conditions that are consistent with forest plan revision. 

Management Direction

The project area includes 23 management areas (MA) as described in the Coconino National 

Forest plan (pages 46 to 206-113). Table 14 displays the MAs located within the project area, 

forest plan MA emphasis, and the relationship between MA total acreage to the project. The MA 

direction for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis Area (FLEA) MA is displayed 

throughout the 10 MAs that make up the FLEA.

On the Kaibab NF, the project area includes five geographic areas (GAs) and one land use zone 

(LUZ). Approximately 183,729 acres of GA 2 (Williams forest land) and 41,012 acres of GA 10, 

(Tusayan forest land) are proposed for treatment in the project area. About 8,353 acres of 

treatment are proposed within GA 1 (Western Williams Woodland), GA3 (North Williams 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

30 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Woodland), and GA 8 (Tusayan Woodland). Treatments are proposed within about 1,049 acres of 

LUZ 21 (existing developed recreation sites). Table 14 displays the acreage associated with the 

MAs and GAs in the project area where the majority of restoration actions are proposed. Figure 

21 displays the general location of the management areas (MAs) and geographic areas (GAs) in

the project area.

For additional information, see chapter 4 of the forest plans (“Coconino National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan,” pages 21 to 206-118; “Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan,” pages 16 to 114) where detailed descriptions of forestwide resource direction 

specific to management or geographic areas and land use zones is located. 

Figure 21. Forest plan management and geographic areas within the project area
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 31

Table 14. Forest plan management areas (MA), geographic areas (GA), and land use zones (LUZ) within the project area

Forest Plan 

MAs and GAs

within the 

Project Area*

Description Forest Plan Emphasis

Forestwide

MA and GA 

Acres

MA and GA 

Acres within 

Project Area

Acres/Percent of 

Forestwide MA/GA 

Proposed for 

Treatment

Coconino National Forest

MA 3 Ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer on less than 40%

slope

Sustained yield of timber and firewood, 

wildlife habitat, grazing, high quality water,

dispersed recreation

511,015 236,245 190,763/37

MA 35 Lake Mary Watershed Maintenance and/or improvement of soil 

condition and watershed function, reduced fire 

risk in urban/rural influence zone

62,536 59,301 37,801/60

MA 38 West Reduced fire risk in urban/rural influence 

zone, recreation, scenic quality

36,298 36,134 19,538/54

MA 33 Doney Reduced fire risk in urban/rural influence 

zone, recreation, grasslands, scenic quality

40,530 25,779 14,023/35

MA 36 Schultz Reduce wildfire risk, maintain watershed 

health, and water quality

21,289 21,130 7,069/33

MA 37 Walnut Canyon Reduce fire risk in urban/rural interface zone, 

progress toward desired forest structure 

including MSO and goshawk habitats 

20,566 18,030 6,420/31

MA 13 Cinder Hills OHV recreation opportunities and amenities, 

scenic integrity, geologic features

13,711 13,732 13,670/99

MA 6 Unproductive timber lands Wildlife habitat, watershed condition, grazing 67,146 12,115 11,628/17

MA 4 Ponderosa pine and MC 

above 40%

Wildlife habitat, watershed condition, and 

dispersed recreation

46,382 11,793 8,107/18

MA 32 Deadman Wash Grasslands, unroaded landscape, grazing,

hunting

58,133 11,659 11,380/20
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

32 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Forest Plan 

MAs and GAs

within the 

Project Area*

Description Forest Plan Emphasis

Forestwide

MA and GA 

Acres

MA and GA 

Acres within 

Project Area

Acres/Percent of 

Forestwide MA/GA 

Proposed for 

Treatment

MA 31 Craters Restore natural grasslands, reestablish or 

maintain fire in pinyon-juniper woodland

29,940 8,969 8,969/15

MA 10 Transition 

grassland/sparse PJ above 

Mogollon Rim

Range management, watershed condition, and 

wildlife habitat

160,494 8,544 8,012/5 

MA 9 Mountain grasslands Livestock grazing, visual quality, wildlife 

habitat

9,049 7,102 5,385/60

MA 20 Highway 180 corridor Scenic attraction, access to year-round 

recreation and Grand Canyon NP

7,608 6,213 4,237/56

MA 7 PJ woodlands < 40% Firewood production, watershed condition, 

wildlife habitat, grazing

19,077 3,206 3,203/17 

MA 5 Aspen Wildlife habitat, visual quality, sustain yield 

of firewood production, watershed condition, 

dispersed recreation

3,450 2,761 695/20

MA 28 Schnebly Rim Seasonal gateway, conserve winter range for 

deer, elk, turkey

5,090 2,455 2,455/48

MA 34 Flagstaff Reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, 

recreation, scenic quality

1,781 1,675 1,460/82

MA 18 Elden Environmental 

Study Area

Visual resource management, watershed 

condition, manage for low fire potential with 

fire reestablished

1,577 1,611 337/21

MA 12 Riparian and open water Wildlife habitat, visual quality, fish habitat, 

watershed condition on the wetlands, riparian 

forest, and riparian scrub, dispersed recreation 

on the open water portions

20,490 653 609/3

MA 8 PJ woodlands > 40 % Firewood production, watershed condition, 

wildlife habitat, and livestock grazing

273,815 451 248/<1
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 33

Forest Plan 

MAs and GAs

within the 

Project Area*

Description Forest Plan Emphasis

Forestwide

MA and GA 

Acres

MA and GA 

Acres within 

Project Area

Acres/Percent of 

Forestwide MA/GA 

Proposed for 

Treatment

MA 15 Developed recreation sites Developed recreation 874 805 48/6 

MA 14 Oak Creek Canyon Scenery, recreation, wildlife habitat, healthy 

streams, clean air and water, manage fire 

hazards and risk

5,388 7 7/<1

Kaibab National Forest

GA 2 Williams Forest land Suitable timberland, recreation, grazing,

wildlife habitat 

308,394 299,842 181,371/59

GA 10 Tusayan Forest land Wildlife habitat, recreation, grazing 86,250 43,559 41,012/48

GA 1 Western Williams 

Woodland 

Wildlife habitat, sandstone products, scenic 

routes and features, grazing, wild burro 

territory 

169,041 4,807 3,360/2 

GA 3 Northern Williams 

Woodland

Winter wildlife habitat, scenic routes and 

features, grazing

65,533 3,485 3,475/5 

GA 8 Tusayan Woodland Wildlife habitat, scenic routes and features, 

grasslands, grazing

195,118 1,518 1,518/1 

LUZ 21 Existing developed 

recreation sites

Existing public and private sector developed 

recreation sites and other smaller sites 

(trailheads, interpretive sites, etc.)

1,556 1,049 1,049/67

*Acres and percentages are approximate as many mapping inconsistencies were found when we compared the management area boundary maps to vegetation stand data. 

Forest plan MA mapping was conducted at a very coarse scale whereas the numbers associated with our vegetation stand data is much more precise. The FLEA MA on the 

Coconino NF is comprised of MA 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 which are included in the table.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

34 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Public Involvement

Collaboration

Collaboration has been integral to moving forward with a landscape restoration proposal. In 2010, 

stakeholders began refining their vision for ponderosa pine forest restoration across 2.4 million 

acres on four national forests in Arizona including the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Tonto. The 4FRI stakeholders developed a comprehensive restoration strategy for the Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs (4FRI Stakeholders 2010). The landscape strategy documented existing 

conditions, identified potential treatment areas, and desired post-treatment conditions. The Forest 

Service used the stakeholder’s landscape strategy to inform the purpose and need and proposed 

action. 

Scoping

The project was posted in the Coconino and Kaibab NF’s schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) in 

January of 2011 and the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on January 25, 2011 (FR Doc. 2011–1444). 

A draft proposed action was sent to a mailing list (hard copy and electronic mail) of 1,331 

individuals, local government, State government, Federal and State agencies, and organizations. 

Fifty-four responses were received through May 5, 2011. A scoping report that included a 

summary of the scoping process was posted on the 4FRI Web site on June 29, 2011 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri). 

In addition to a pre-scoping public meeting/workshop held on January 20, 2011, 

meetings/workshops were held on the Coconino NF on February 2, 2011, February 16, 2011, and 

February 24, 2011. A meeting/workshop was held on Kaibab NF on February 9, 2011. The 

purpose of these meetings was to receive comments that would be used to develop a revised 

proposed action. The sixth public meeting was held at the Coconino NF Supervisor’s Office on 

April 27, 2011, for the purposes of providing a project update. A public meeting was held on June 

7, 2011, for the purposes of receiving comments on edits made to the proposed action. On 

average, meeting/workshop attendance ranged from 10 to 20 participants.

A revised proposed action was sent to a mailing list of 213 parties (169 electronic mail and 44 

hard copy recipients) and a second 14-day public comment period began with publication of a 

second revised NOI in the Federal Register on August 19, 2011 (FR. Doc. 2011–20496). Thirtyfour comments were received during this informal 2-week comment period. Eight comments 

received prior to the informal comment period (May 12, 2011 to July 26, 2011) and three 

comments received after the close of the comment period (September 4 to September 8, 2011) 

were accepted as part of the public involvement process. In sum, 45 comments were received 

from May 12, 2011, to September 8, 2011. 

Prior to the onset of the August 19, 2011, comment period, an open house was held on August 17, 

2011, at the Coconino NF Supervisor’s Office. Six people attended the open house. During the 

comment period, an open house was held on August 25, 2011, at the Williams Ranger District 

(Kaibab NF). Eleven Forest Service personnel from the Kaibab NF attended the open house. As 

part of coordination with local governments and residents, project updates were provided to the 

Coconino City Council and city of Flagstaff on September 12, 2011, and again on December 5, 

2011. The Tusayan and Camp Verde City Council received a project update on October 5, 2011. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 35 

The Sedona and Williams City Council was updated on October 25, 2011.Updates to local 

residents and communities were provided at the Mountainaire Community Picnic (at the 

invitation of the Coconino County Supervisor) on September 17, 2011, and via an educational 

booth at the Flagstaff Festival of Science in September of 2011 and 2012. 

In the fall of 2011, meetings were held with commenters to clarify comments received on the 

revised proposed action. This included hosting meetings to discuss comments on large trees on 

October 14, 2011, and on canopy cover (in relation to forest plan goshawk guidelines) on 

December 15, 2011 (Coconino NF Supervisor’s Office).

In 2012, monthly public meetings were hosted from March through July to discuss the status of 

the environmental analysis. Draft (working) documents shared at the public meetings and made 

available on the 4FRI Web site (http://www.fs.fed.usda.gov/main/4fri/planning) included: issues, 

alternatives, draft forest plan amendments, cumulative effects, scoping report (August 2011 

scoping period), and version 5 of the modified large tree retention implementation strategy

(alternative C). 

Only a sampling of the public involvement effort is included in this summary. See the project 

record for complete documentation. The project has been continuously posted on the Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs’ SOPA since January of 2011 and public involvement and analysis related 

documents have been posted on the 4FRI Web site, http://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri since January 

2011. 

Cooperating Agencies

On March 11, 2011, the Arizona Department of Game and Fish (AGFD) became a cooperating 

agency. The AGFD provided a habitat specialist to assist with the wildlife management indicator 

species (MIS) effects analysis.

Tribal Consultation

The following tribes and tribal chapters who have historic ties and an interest in the Coconino and 

Kaibab National Forests were consulted with and include: Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo 

Nation including Coppermine, Coalmine, Naness, Lechee, Leupp, Bodaway, Cameron, Tuba City, 

Dilkon and Tolani Lake Chapters, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, San Juan Southern Paiute, 

White Mountain Apache, Yavapai-Apache Nation, San Carlos Apache, Hualapai, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe, Havasupai, Tonto Apache, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, Hopi, and 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. 

Consultation began September 10, 2009, with the Kaibab NF supervisor sending an invitation to 

seven federally recognized tribes to discuss 4FRI and other forest projects. On January 27, 2011, 

the forests sent a letter to tribes and tribal chapters providing information and seeking 

involvement and comments. Two written scoping responses were received. The White Mountain 

Apache responded on February 17, 2011, and indicated no concern with the project. A response 

from the Havasupai Tribe on March 7, 2011, asked for additional information on what the 

expected outcome of the proposals would be. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

36 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

On August 22, 2011, a second scoping letter was sent to the tribes. Tribes responded and provided 

additional input and voiced concerns during consultation meetings. Concerns include the 

following: 

• Traditional cultural properties are at risk to catastrophic fire;

• Springs and plant collection areas are at risk to catastrophic fire;

• Overstocked stands are reducing the sunlight available for cultural and medicinal plants;

• Springs that are important to tribal ceremonies are drying up; 

• A lack of low-intensity fire is reducing regeneration of plant collection areas;

• Smoke may affect some tribal communities;

• Tribes need access to sites for ceremonies and traditional gathering, and; 

• Tribes are concerned with the preservation of cultural resources.

Tribes that have not participated in tribal consultation will continue to receive information via 

email and hand delivered mail. Information will be shared unless a tribe asks specifically to not 

be informed. See the “Tribal Relations” section in chapter 3 and the tribal relations specialist 

report for the complete consultation documentation. 

Issues

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed 

action, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare tradeoffs 

for the decision maker and public to understand. In order to identify issues, the interdisciplinary 

team (IDT) reviewed and considered all scoping comments during both phases of the public 

involvement period. How scoping comments were addressed and were used to inform the analysis 

can be viewed in the final scoping report that is posted on the 4FRI Web site or in the project 

record. Following are the key issues identified by the public and used to focus the analysis or 

drive alternative development. 

Issue 1: Prescribed Fire Emissions

Emissions resulting from prescribed fire activities would occur continuously over a 10-year 

period. Project emissions would degrade air quality and the health of northern Arizona residents, 

particularly residents of the Verde Valley and Snowflake, Arizona. This project, when combined 

with prescribed fires that other forests conduct, would negatively impact northern Arizona 

residents. Residents would experience constant smoke (an emission) over a long period of time. 

Reduced visibility and air quality from smoke would negatively affect the quality of life for 

residents and would reduce tourism in the area. The reduction of tourism would result in longterm impacts to the local and regional economy of northern Arizona. The volume of smoke and 

the emissions that are part of smoke could affect public health. An alternative that: (1) eliminates 

all use of prescribed fire, (2) eliminates most prescribed fire use and relies on other methods to 

dispose of biomass, and (3) improves coordination amongst all forests that use prescribed fire in 

the vicinity of the Verde Valley and Snowflake is needed. There needs to be smoke-free periods 

for residents downwind of the project.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 37 

Response

An alternative that would eliminate all prescribed fire was considered but eliminated from 

detailed study as it did not adequately meet the purpose and need for restoring the fire adapted 

southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem. Alternatives B and C propose using prescribed fire 

across the entire project area and alternative C adds acres on which prescribed fires would be 

used to restore additional acres of grasslands. Alternative D was developed to respond to the 

emissions/smoke issue by decreasing the acres proposed for prescribed fire. All action 

alternatives include design criteria aimed at reducing impacts to air quality (as practicable) and 

increasing coordination efforts amongst neighboring forests. The fire ecology, air quality, 

recreation, and social-economics environmental consequences disclose the potential impacts to 

air quality, quality of life, the local and regional economy, and public health and safety. The 

indicators used to evaluate this issue are:

• Quantitative emission modeling and qualitative interpretation to evaluate the potential 

for emissions within communities that are within, or in close proximity to, the project; 

• Modeling of principal pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), ozone (O2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollutants that pose 

potential health hazards to evaluate compliance with the Clean Air Act as regulated by 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ); and 

• Social and economic evaluation of impacts to quality of life and tourism.

Issue 2: Conservation of Large Trees

The large tree retention strategy (LTRS), which was developed by the 4FRI stakeholders, was not 

included in the proposed action. Large post-settlement trees, as defined by a socio-political 

process, are those greater than 16-inch d.b.h. The LTRS was designed to increase landscape 

heterogeneity and conserve biodiversity. The LTRS represents social agreement between parties 

that greatly enhances the chance for landscape restoration to succeed and reduces the risk of 

conflict. If the LTRS is not incorporated, the current social support for landscape-scale restoration 

may be withdrawn. In addition, it may result in the removal of key ecosystem components that 

include nesting and roosting habitat and large woody debris that is important for wildlife.

Response

The vegetation analysis will evaluate how proposed treatments affect vegetation structural stages 

(VSS), including those trees that are 16-inch d.b.h. or larger. This analysis will be used to inform 

the wildlife effects analysis. Alternatives B (proposed action alternative) and D do not incorporate 

the LTRS. However, alternative C responds to this issue by incorporating the key components of 

the LTRS and focusing on ecological desired conditions. It identifies ecological conditions where

large, post-settlement trees may (or should) be removed in order to move toward or meet desired

conditions. The intent of the LTRS has been incorporated into the alternative’s design criteria, the 

monitoring and adaptive management plan, and the project implementation plan. 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

38 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The indicators used to evaluate this issue are:

• Quantitative pre-treatment and post-treatment three-level analysis for MSO, goshawk, 

old growth, and VSS for goshawk habitat at the landscape scale (ponderosa pine 

vegetation type) to gauge movement toward restoration desired conditions, and 

• Qualitative analysis of pre-treatment and post-treatment nonmarket social values that 

include large trees, public safety, and other biodiversity objectives that may conflict with 

the protection of large trees.

Issue 3: Post-Treatment Canopy Cover and Landscape Openness

Measuring canopy cover in goshawk habitat at the group level will not meet forest plan standscale canopy requirements. A reduction in canopy and large tree densities have never been 

analyzed under NEPA and NFMA and could have deleterious effects to goshawk, its prey species, 

and those wildlife species that are dependent on that cover. Because natural openings would no 

longer be included within the VSS classification, it would result in significantly more lands being 

in an open condition or outside of the VSS 4 to 6 classifications. This could substantially increase 

the logging of mature and old trees, and negatively affect wildlife, including goshawk and its prey 

species.

Response

All action alternatives (B, C, and D) are designed to meet canopy cover in VSS 4 to VSS 6 in 

compliance with the forest plans. The vegetation analysis addresses the interrelationship between 

canopy cover and old and large trees.

To address post-treatment openness and canopy cover where the desired condition is to move 

toward an open ponderosa pine (savanna/grassland) reference condition, a nonsignificant forest 

plan amendment was developed for alternatives B, C, and D. The amendment describes how 

canopy cover will be measured and met at the group level, includes language that defines and 

describes interspaces, and describes the relationship between interspaces, openings, and VSS

classes. It would also allow select acres to be managed for less than 40 percent canopy cover in 

VSS 4 to VSS 6 and less than 3 to 5 reserve trees per acre. 

The analysis discloses tree group stocking guides that would be used to meet tree group canopy 

cover requirements and evaluates the following within goshawk habitat: pre- and post-treatment 

distribution of habitat structure, overall habitat structure (VSS class), forest density metrics, and 

openness. 

Issue 4: Increased Restoration and Research

Increased Restoration: Additional acres of grassland restoration treatments in the vicinity of 

Government Prairie and the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area are needed on the 

Kaibab NF. The historic grasslands are being encroached upon by pine. Additional acres of 

prescribed fire and restoration treatments should occur within MSO protected habitat to further 

improve the quality of MSO roosting and nesting habitat and align with the MSO recovery plan 

(USDI 2012). 

Research: Research that evaluates the effect of residual tree groups and treeless opening size on 

small mammals and bird species should be included in projects of this scale. Research that 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 39 

evaluates the impact of landscape-scale restoration actions to water yield should be incorporated. 

Outcomes from wildlife and water yield research can inform future restoration projects.

Response

Alternative C responds to recommendations to include mechanical and/or prescribed fire 

treatments in the vicinity of Government Prairie and within the proposed Garland Prairie 

Research Natural Area (RNA) on the Kaibab NF to move this area closer to its historic reference 

condition. The alternative responds to recommendations from FWS to increase prescribed 

burning treatments within protected habitat by increasing the acres of prescribed burning to 72 

protected activity centers, including 56 core areas. In target threshold habitat, the desired basal 

area in protected activity centers is adjusted to be in alignment with the MSO recovery plan. 

Alternative C adjusts vegetation (decreases acres) and prescribed burning (increases acres) 

treatments in order to incorporate two research opportunities. One study would evaluate the effect 

of residual tree groups and treeless opening size on small mammals and bird species. The second 

study would evaluate water yield from landscape-scale restoration actions.

The indicators used to evaluate this issue are:

• Acres of grassland vegetation moving toward desired conditions

• Acres of improved MSO nesting and roosting habitat 

• Qualitative assessment of alignment with MSO recovery plan

Proposed Action Development 

During the initial phase of scoping (January 2011 to June 2011), meetings and workshops were 

held for the purpose of refining the draft proposed action. We recorded many comments 

requesting additional detail on what vegetation and prescribed fire treatments would look like 

once implemented. Many commenters provided input and recommendations on identifying and 

prioritizing resources and infrastructure at risk from high severity fire. Treatment in these 

locations is reflected in the proposed action (and subsequent alternatives). 

Another topic that emerged was the conservation of old trees. In response to recommendations, 

key concepts from the stakeholder developed old tree protection strategy (OTPS) were 

incorporated into the purpose and need (4FRI Stakeholders 2011). Treatment design criteria and 

mitigation (which are consistent with the OTPS) were developed and the OTPS was made 

integral to the revised proposed action as an attachment (appendix E, August 2011 proposed 

action document). An old tree implementation plan was developed and made part of the final 

proposed action alternative (and all subsequent alternatives). 

As the analysis progressed, the need to better describe treatments within MSO protected activity 

centers (PACs) was raised by the FWS. In response, the language in the proposed action was 

revised to clarify that mechanical treatment was proposed in 18 select PACs and the use of 

prescribed fire was proposed in 72 PACs, excluding core areas. 

As the proposed action was refined, the concept of adaptive management was incorporated into 

the proposal to provide flexibility to account for inaccurate initial assumptions, to adapt to 

changes in environmental conditions, and/or to respond to subsequent monitoring information 

that indicates that desired conditions are not being met (USDA 2011, 2012). With this objective in 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

40 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

mind, vegetation treatments were designed to have a range of treatment types and intensities. 

Having a range of treatment options facilitates implementing a treatment that best responds to the 

site-specific resource condition and most effectively allows movement toward desired conditions. 

Related documents that are part of the final proposed action alternative (and subsequent 

alternatives) include the implementation plan (appendix D) and the monitoring and adaptive 

management plan (appendix E) developed in collaboration with the 4FRI stakeholders). The 

purpose of the implementation plan is to ensure that actions taken under adaptive management are 

consistent with the predicted effects and decision.

Changes to the Proposed Action 

After the August 17, 2011, Scoping Period

After public scoping comments were reviewed and more intensive analysis was performed by 

resource specialists, the Coconino and Kaibab NF supervisors approved modifications to the 

proposed action (alternative B), as allowed by 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii). A summary of key 

changes includes:

• Incorporating the old tree protection strategy into the final proposed action, 

implementation plan, and monitoring/adaptive management plan 

• Correcting acreages (and terms as needed) for vegetation types, goshawk and MSO 

habitats, old growth allocations, and road miles 

• Identifying forest plan amendments, including adding an amendment for cultural 

resources on the Coconino NF and adding language to the draft MSO amendment to 

address population and habitat monitoring in MSO habitat

• Clarifying and finalizing road treatment type, amount, and definitions, including those 

proposed in MSO and goshawk habitat 

A detailed list of changes made to the proposed action is located in the project record. 

Final Proposed Action

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs propose to conduct approximately 587,923 acres of restoration 

activities over approximately 10 years or until objectives are met. Up to 45,000 acres of 

vegetation would be mechanically treated annually. Up to 40,000 acres of prescribed fire would 

be implemented annually across the forests. Two prescribed fires would be conducted on all acres 

proposed for treatment over the 10-year period. Restoration activities would:

• Mechanically cut trees and apply prescribed fire on approximately 388,489 acres. This 

includes: (1) mechanically treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. within 18 MSO protected 

activity centers, (2) cutting 99 acres of trees by hand on slopes greater than 40 percent, 

and (3) using low severity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs (excluding core areas). 

• Utilize prescribed fire only on approximately 199,435 acres.

• Construct 517 miles of temporary roads for haul access and decommission when 

treatments are complete (no new permanent roads would be constructed).

• Reconstruct up to 40 miles of existing, open roads for resource and safety concerns (no 

new permanent roads would be constructed). Of these miles, approximately 30 miles 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 41 

would be improved to allow for haul (primarily widening corners to improve turn 

radiuses) and about 10 miles of road would be relocated out of stream bottoms. 

Relocated roads would include rehabilitation of the moved road segment. 

• Decommission a total of 904 miles of roads that includes 770 miles of existing system 

and unauthorized roads on the Coconino NF and 134 miles of unauthorized roads on the 

Kaibab NF. 

• Restore 74 springs and construct up to 4 miles of protective fencing. 

• Restore 39 miles of ephemeral channels. 

• Construct up to 82 miles of protective (aspen) fencing. 

• Allocate as old growth 40 percent of ponderosa pine and 77 percent of pinyon-juniper 

woodland on the Coconino NF and 35 percent of ponderosa pine and 58 percent of 

pinyon-juniper on the Kaibab NF.

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement the proposed action: 

Amendment 1 would add language to allow mechanical treatments up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. to improve habitat structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO 

PACs. The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the 

recovery unit to 10 percent increments and language that requires the selection of 

an equal number of untreated PACs as controls. The amendment would remove 

language referencing monitoring (pre- and post-treatment, population, and habitat 

monitoring). Replacement language would defer final project design and 

monitoring to the FWS’s biological opinion specific to MSO for the project. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow 

for designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as 

target or threshold ( i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality 

of the habitat. Definitions of target and threshold habitat would be added. 

Amendment 2 would add the desired percentage of interspace within unevenaged stands to facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add 

the interspace distance between tree groups, add language clarifying where 

canopy cover is and is not measured, allow 29,017 acres to be managed for an 

open reference condition, and add a definition to the forest plan glossary for the 

terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.

Amendment 3 would remove the cultural resource standard that requires 

achieving a “no effect” determination and would add the words “or no adverse 

effect” to the remaining standard. In effect, management would strive to achieve 

a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination.

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement the proposed action: 

Amendment 1 would add the desired percentage of interspace within unevenaged stands to facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

42 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

the interspace distance between tree groups, add language clarifying where 

canopy cover is and is not measured, allow 27,637 acres to be managed for an 

open reference condition, and add a definition to the forest plan glossary for the 

terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.

Amendment 2 would allow for designating less than 10 percent of restricted 

habitat in pine-oak as target or threshold (i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) 

based on the quality of the habitat. The amendment would remove language that 

limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 percent increments and requires 

the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs as controls. Replacement 

language would defer to the FWS biological opinion for the project. The 

amendment would also remove language that references monitoring (pre- and 

post-treatment, population, and habitat monitoring) and replace it with language 

that defers MSO monitoring to the FWS biological opinion for the project. 

Figure 22 through figure 24 provide a coarse-scale overview of restoration treatment locations. 

Please refer to the description of alternative B (proposed action alternative) in chapter 2 for 

details that include tables and maps that display proposed treatments.
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 43 

Figure 22. Final proposed action general locations of mechanical and prescribed fire 

treatments 
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

44 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 23. Final proposed action general locations of road activities by RU
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 45 

Figure 24. Final proposed action general location of spring and ephemeral channel 

restoration actions by RU

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 47

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Coconino and Kaibab 

NFs’ restoration project and presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the 

differences between each alternative, and providing a clear basis for choice by the decision 

maker. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the 

alternative (appendix C) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and 

economic effects of implementing each alternative (chapter 3).

Alternative Development Process 

As a result of extensive collaboration over an 8-month timeframe and additional analysis, the 

proposed action was modified as allowed by 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii), which states that “the 

description of the proposal and alternative(s) may include a brief description of modifications and 

incremental design criteria developed through the analysis process to develop the range of

alternatives considered.”

Minor modifications included incorporating the stakeholder developed old tree protection strategy

(OTPS) (with some modifications) into alternative B, correcting vegetation, habitat, old growth, 

and road acreages or miles, finalizing forest plan amendments, and developing the adaptive 

management and monitoring, and implementation plan. See the “Proposed Action Development” 

section in chapter 1 for additional information. 

Those concerns that could not be addressed through minor modifications to the proposal were 

considered key issues and drove the development of two additional alternatives (see the “Issues” 

section in chapter 1). The minor modifications incorporated into the final proposed action 

(alternative B) were carried forward into the other alternatives.

Alternative C responds to Issue 2—conservation of large trees—by incorporating key 

components from the original 4FRI stakeholder created large tree retention strategy (4FRI 

stakeholders 2011) into the alternative’s implementation plan. The alternative also responds to 

Issue 4—increased restoration and research. The alternative adds acres of grassland restoration 

treatment on the Kaibab NF. It includes recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) by increasing prescribed burning treatments within protected Mexican spotted owl (MSO) 

habitat (to improve the quality of owl roosting and nesting habitat), and aligning treatments in 

threshold habitat with the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision” (USDI 2012). 

The alternative also adjusts treatments (decreases acres of mechanical treatment and increases the 

acres of prescribed fire) in order to incorporate two research opportunities including a small 

mammal and bird study and a water yield study. 

Alternative D was developed to respond to Issue 1—prescribed fire emissions—by decreasing the 

acres on which prescribed fire would be utilized. Other attributes of alternative D, with the 

exception of the use of prescribed fire, are similar to alternative B. 

All action alternatives (B–D) address Issue 2—post-treatment canopy cover and landscape 

openness—through quantitative and qualitative analysis and with a forest plan amendment for 

both forests. All action alternatives (B–D) propose additional activities including restoring springs 

and ephemeral channels, constructing protective fencing in select aspen stands, constructing (and 

decommissioning) temporary roads, reconstructing and improving roads, relocating a minimal 

number of road miles, and decommissioning existing roads and unauthorized routes. All action 

alternatives include design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

48 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

(appendix C), an implementation plan (appendix D), and a monitoring and adaptive management 

plan (appendix E). The implementation plan includes direction for managing old trees. A 

modified version of the original stakeholder developed large tree retention strategy is only 

applicable to the implementation plan in alternative C.

Forest Plan Consistency

Forestwide and management/geographic area-specific standards and guidelines have been 

incorporated into the design of alternatives B, C, and D as displayed in appendix C. Other 

applicable forest plan requirements that have been incorporated by resource are in the resource 

specialist reports. With the proposed nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B), 

alternatives B, C, and D are consistent with the Coconino and Kaibab NFs forest plan direction. 

As discussed in chapter 1 (pages 7–8), the Coconino and Kaibab forest plans are currently under 

revision. Depending on the timing of the release of final documents, the final 4FRI analysis will 

be consistent with the plans in effect at that time.

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

The range of alternatives considered by the responsible officials includes alternatives to the 

proposed action that are analyzed in the document, as well as other alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study. Public comments received in response to the proposed action 

suggested alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need, including an alternative that 

would: (1) utilize mechanical treatments limited to 8-inch d.b.h., (2) utilize prescribed fire as the 

sole treatment method, (3) eliminate the use of prescribed fire, (4) utilize the original large tree 

retention strategy, and (5) limit mechanical treatments to 16-inch d.b.h. 

Limit Mechanical Treatments to 8-inch d.b.h. 

This alternative was based on the assertion that crown fire can be effectively addressed with 

mechanical treatments that do not exceed 8-inch d.b.h. Small diameter mechanical tree cutting 

would be used to establish tree groups, nonforested openings (interspaces), and move toward a 

balance of tree age and size classes. Prescribed fire would be used to reduce litter and other 

surface fuels, stimulate herbaceous understory vegetation, prepare sites for natural ponderosa pine 

regeneration, and maintain interspaces.

This alternative was not analyzed in detail. After an initial analysis, it was determined that it 

would not meet various elements of the purpose and need, as described below. The purpose and 

need statement is displayed below in bold text.

The purpose of the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest 

health, and vegetation composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest 

resiliency and sustainability, protect soil productivity, and improve soil and watershed 

function. Resiliency increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest to survive natural 

disturbances such as fire, insect and disease, fire, and climate change (FSM 2020.5).

• Nonforested openings (interspaces), tree group size, and shape would be determined by 

the location of less than 8-inch d.b.h. trees. In situations where the existing condition is 

dominated by trees greater than 8-inch d.b.h., the post-treatment condition would result 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 49

in large, continuous tree groups with very little variety in size or shape and very little 

interspace. The post-treatment condition would not move the project area toward forest 

structure and pattern desired conditions. 

• Treatment of approximately 147, 947 acres of VSS 3 stands (with an average diameter 

larger than 8 inches) and 227,042 acres of VSS 4 to VSS 6 (all stands identified for 

mechanical treatment) would be constrained by an 8-inch d.b.h. limit. These stands 

would not be treated or would have minimal treatment. Approximately 73 percent of the 

512,178 acres of ponderosa pine within the project area would not move toward desired 

conditions for forest structure and pattern. In both the short (up to 10 years) and long 

term (20-plus years) these areas would continue on a trajectory away from the desired 

forest structure.

• In northern goshawk habitat, the project area currently has an imbalance of tree size 

classes. In terms of landscape ecology, each size class represents specific habitat 

components that are needed for goshawk prey species. An imbalance in these habitat 

components potentially decreases the ability of goshawks to maintain their population 

numbers over time. Currently, the project area is deficit of mature and old forest (VSS 5 

and 6), as well as seedlings and saplings (VSS 2). 

• Even-aged stand conditions apply to 46 percent of landscapes outside of post-fledgling 

area (LOPFA) habitat (see chapter 1). Forest plan direction is to move these areas 

toward an uneven-aged condition. Constraining treatments within even-aged LOPFA 

habitat to 8-inch d.b.h. would result in over 80 percent (VSS 3 with an average diameter 

greater than 8 inches, all VSS 4, 5, and 6) of these acres remaining even-aged. This 

would be contrary to moving toward improved forest structure and pattern desired 

conditions which affect habitat. 

• Uneven-aged stand conditions apply to 54 percent of the LOPFA habitat (see chapter 1 

and the silviculture report). In those portions of the habitat that are currently unevenaged, VSS 3 (35 percent) and VSS 4 (32 percent) are overrepresented and VSS 1 (0 

percent), VSS 2 (2 percent), VSS 5 (14 percent), and VSS 6 (17 percent) are 

underrepresented (relative to a balanced age/structure uneven-aged condition). In 

uneven-aged stands, concentrating all treatment to 8-inch d.b.h. and less would result in 

no movement toward a balance of age classes within over 90 percent (VSS 3 with an 

average diameter greater than 8 inches, all VSS 4, 5, and 6) of the uneven-aged LOPFA 

habitat. 

• In ponderosa pine (analysis area extent), young and mid-age structural stages (VSS 3 

and VSS 4) account for approximately 82 percent of the ponderosa pine project area 

while the grass/forb and seedling/saplings stages (VSS 1 and VSS 2) are approximately 

2 percent, the mature tree stage (VSS 5) is 10 percent, and the old forest stage (VSS 6) is 

6 percent. The low representation in the seedling/sapling, mature, and old classes 

indicates limited structural stage diversity across the landscape (silviculture report, page 

27). In many situations, VSS 3 and VSS 4 are in direct competition with the remaining 

pre-settlement trees (old forest). This intertree competition has a negative effect on old 

tree growth and vigor resulting in density-related mortality, decreased resilience, and an 

unsustainable condition. This would be contrary to the need to improving resiliency and 

sustainability.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

50 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Removal of the younger trees competing with the old trees would be determined by the 

location of trees less than 8-inch d.b.h. VSS 3 (greater than 8 inches) and VSS 4 classes 

would continue to dominate the landscape and remain in direct competition with the old 

trees. Movement toward the desired condition is not likely to occur in 199,536 acres (39 

percent) of VSS 3 and 221,101 acres (43 percent) of VSS 4 (see the 3A to 3C rows in 

table 6 of the silviculture report). This condition would be contrary to moving toward

forest structure and pattern desired conditions.

• Approximately 374,989 acres of VSS 3 and 191,715 acres of VSS 4, 5, and 6 currently 

have a stand density index (SDI) greater than 55 percent of maximum SDI, the threshold 

for density-related mortality in ponderosa pine. There would be limited ability to reduce 

the potential for density-related mortality on 566,704 acres in areas dominated by trees 

greater than 8-inch d.b.h. with an SDI greater than 55 percent of maximum SDI. This 

condition would be contrary improving forest resiliency and sustainability.

• Gambel oak – Ponderosa pine trees are the primary factor inhibiting Gambel oak 

development within 65,024 acres of MSO restricted other habitat. Sixty-two percent of 

these acres are dominated by trees greater than 8 inches with a SDI greater than 55 

percent6

. Mechanical treatment constrained by an 8-inch limit would not move Gambel 

oak toward (vegetation composition and diversity) desired conditions in terms of 

increasing oak growth rates and reducing density-related mortality on approximately 

40,315 acres of MSO restricted other habitat.

• Aspen – Mechanical treatments up to 8-inch d.b.h. that reduce pine-aspen competition 

would maintain the aspen overstory and promote aspen regeneration. However, in areas 

that are dominated by trees greater than 8-inch d.b.h., mechanical treatment constrained 

to an 8-inch d.b.h. would have very little ability to increase the aspen growth rate or 

stimulate regeneration and move aspen toward desired conditions for vegetation 

composition and diversity. 

• Grasslands – In 11,230 acres of historic (mollisol soils) grassland within the ponderosa 

pine cover type, 9,435 acres (84 percent) are dominated by trees greater than 8 inches 

d.b.h. Mechanical treatment constrained by an 8-inch limit would not adequately move 

grasslands toward (vegetation composition and diversity) desired conditions by restoring 

historic tree pattern and density.

• Pine-sage – Within the 5,261 acres of pine-sage proposed for mechanical treatment, 

5,187 acres (99 percent) are dominated by trees greater than 8 inches. Mechanical 

treatment constrained by an 8-inch limit is not expected to adequately move pine-sage 

toward (vegetation composition and diversity) desired conditions by restoring the 

historic tree pattern and density.

Summary: This alternative would partially address Issue 2, conservation of large trees, since 

mechanical treatments would be curtailed at 8-inch d.b.h. It would not achieve restoration desired 

conditions. It would resolve Issue 3, post-treatment canopy cover and landscape openness, since 

only small-diameter trees would be removed. However, approximately 73 percent of the 512,178 

 

6 Based upon established forest density/vigor relationships, density-related mortality begins to occur once 

the forest reaches 45 to 50 percent of maximum stand density and mortality is likely at density levels of 

60 percent+ of maximum stand density. See chapter 1 of the DEIS and the silviculture report for 

additional information on stand density.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 51

acres of ponderosa pine within the project area would not move toward forest structure and 

pattern desired conditions. Of all the even-aged stands, 47 percent (VSS 4), 8 percent (VSS 5), 

and 1 percent (VSS 6) would remain even-aged. There would be zero percent movement toward

desired conditions in uneven-aged VSS 4 through VSS 6. For these reasons, this alternative was 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

Utilize Prescribed Fire as the Sole Treatment Method 

In response to public comments and recommendations, we considered an alternative which only 

uses prescribed fire to move toward restoration desired conditions. The recommendations are 

based on the assertion that the current high-intensity fire rotation in southwestern forests is 625 

years and/or that the forests should be predominantly managed as self-regulating through the use 

of natural processes such as fire. This alternative was not analyzed in detail. After an initial 

analysis, it was determined that it would not meet various elements of the purpose and need, as 

described below. The purpose and need statement is displayed in bold text.

The purpose of the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest 

health, and vegetation composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest 

resiliency and sustainability, protect soil productivity, and improve soil and watershed 

function. Resiliency increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest to survive natural 

disturbances such as fire, insect and disease, fire, and climate change (FSM 2020.5).

PACs are representative of old age, old forest structure within the project area. Figure 25 shows 

heavy fuel loading within a PAC. This is representative of conditions within some PACs in the 

project area that are proposed for treatment. In this location, litter is 8 to 12 inches deep. There 

are several inches of duff beneath the litter and large logs scattered about. Some logs are buried in 

the litter. There is a preponderance of young trees, with sufficient canopy fuels to carry active 

crown fire. In areas like this, it would be difficult to reduce surface fuels by thinning with fire 

without killing large and old trees.

Figure 25. High surface fuel loadings in Mormon Mountain 

PAC (2001), Coconino NF
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

52 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Using fire as a thinning agent in these conditions would cause high-severity effects to the surface 

and/or result in uncontrollable fire behavior. This represents extreme fuel loading and is a 

hazardous condition which can produce high-severity effects. If a wildfire burned though this 

PAC (even under moderate conditions), the effect would be high tree mortality, loss of soil 

productivity, and the total loss of nesting and roosting habitat. This would be contrary to the need 

to improve resiliency and sustainability in the project area.

Based on the potential for severe fire effects, using prescribed fire in 18 PACs (without the ability 

to mechanically protect old and large trees) would likely be deferred. No movement toward

reducing fire risk or improved quality in nesting and roosting habitat (as described in the desired 

conditions from forest plans and from MSO recovery plan objectives) would occur in 10,741 

acres (acres to be mechanically treated up to 18-inch d.b.h.) of MSO habitat. Movement toward a 

forest that is resilient to natural disturbances would be diminished. Without resiliency, forest 

sustainability would be affected:

• Old ponderosa pines are often more susceptible to mortality after fire (even lowintensity fires) than younger mature trees (Kolb et al. 2007). The increasing size and 

severity of wildfires and the ensuing death of old and/or large ponderosa pines has been 

linked to fuel accumulation resulting from a century of fire exclusion (Covington et al. 

2001, Hood 2010, and Kolb et al. 2007). In order to avoid excessive old tree damage and 

mortality, any treatment in those acres that contribute to old growth allocation (194,804 

acres of 593,211 acres or 33 percent of the treatment area) would likely be deferred in 

order to avoid a further reduction in pre-settlement trees, which are currently uncommon 

across the landscape. In this alternative, movement toward having a sustainable forest 

structure with age and size class diversity would not be met as there would be continued 

overrepresentation in the VSS 3 and 4 age classes and continued underrepresentation in 

the VSS 5 and VSS 6 age classes.

• Within 27 percent (159,211 acres of 593,211 acres) of the treatment area, a prescribed 

fire only alternative would meet forest structure desired conditions because there is little 

need for changing forest structure on these acres. On the remaining 434,000 acres, 

analysis indicates mechanical treatment would be needed to move toward forest 

structure desired conditions. 

• The project area is currently deficit in VSS 1 and VSS 2 (2 percent of the project area). 

Using prescribed fire only would not provide the adequate regeneration opening 

necessary to move toward the desired condition of a balance of age classes without 

producing high mortality in VSS 5 and VSS 6. The project area is currently deficit in 

mature tree stage (VSS 5) and the old forest stage (VSS 6) is 10 and 6 percent of the 

project area respectfully. Using prescribed fire only would not increase growth in midaged stands to move sites toward mature and old forests. It would not meet forest 

structure and pattern desired conditions. 

• The use of prescribed fire without mechanical treatment could result in undesirable fire 

effects in goshawk habitat as stand density increases over time. In 2020, both even-aged 

and uneven-aged stands that occur in LOPFAs are projected to be dominated by the 

young and mid-aged forest structural stage, approximately twice the desired condition 

(see the silviculture report). Trends in goshawk PFAs are similar as described for 

LOPFAs. This would not meet forest structure and pattern desired conditions and would 

not move improve resiliency in goshawk habitat. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 53

• Fires in areas dominated by dense, even-aged VSS 3 and VSS 4 severe enough to thin 

trees are likely to result in crown fires and would be difficult to manage under any 

circumstances (Miller and Urban 2000). Under these conditions, there is an elevated 

potential for fire to be carried into the overstory canopy or for fire to damage tree 

cambium to the point of overstory mortality beyond what is acceptable (Battaglia, 

Smith, and Shepperd 2009). 

• Up to 76 percent (303,721 acres) of goshawk LOPFA would not be expected to move 

toward the desired condition of having a forest structure with age class diversity. In 

areas dominated by VSS 3 and VSS 4, the tree size would be greater than what could be 

safely and effectively treated with fire. Due to the likelihood of severe fire effects, 

prescribed fire treatments are likely to be deferred in the larger VSS classes. The posttreatment condition would result in large, continuous tree groups with very little variety 

in size or shape and very little interspace. A lack of groups with interspaces would 

increase the likelihood of having future overstory mortality as a result of using 

prescribed fire only. Compliance with forest plan goshawk habitat requirements that 

restrict the width and acre size of openings would be unpredictable. 

• In pine-sage, prescribed fire would need to be deferred in areas where pine cover is 

highest in order to avoid severe effects to the surface vegetation community. Movement 

toward the (vegetation composition and diversity) desired condition by restoring the 

historic pattern within the pine-sage mosaic and managing fire in sage would not be 

achieved in the deferred acres or in areas where treatments led to severe effects to 

surface vegetation.

• Within 11,230 acres of historic (mollisol soils) grassland within the ponderosa pine 

cover type, and the 45,469 acres of historic (mollic-integrade) savanna, about 48,332 

acres (85 percent) are dominated by trees in the VSS 3 and larger classes. On these 

acres, there would very little ability to restore the historic tree pattern and density 

without removing the encroachment prior to using prescribed fire. Moving toward forest 

structure, spatial pattern and vegetation composition and diversity desired conditions 

would not likely to be met under a prescribed fire only scenario. On 48,161 acres of 

grasslands (grassland cover type), prescribed fire only would not accomplish the 

objective of removing tree encroachment of other than seedling size trees; fire only 

would likely produce effects that simulate regeneration and growth of native herbaceous 

vegetation.

• Areas deferred because of dense forest conditions would maintain closed canopies and 

prevent understory development, limiting vegetation diversity and composition, 

particularly for MSO and goshawk prey species.

Summary: This issue would not resolve Issue 2, conservation of large trees. This alternative was 

considered but eliminated from detailed study because: (1) fire risk would remain high and there 

would be no improvement in terms of resiliency in and around MSO PACs; (2) treatment on 

194,804 acres or 33 percent of the treatment area would likely be deferred in order to avoid a 

further reduction in pre-settlement trees; (3) movement toward having a sustainable forest 

structure with age and size class diversity would not be met as there would be continued 

overrepresentation in the VSS 3 and 4 age classes and continued underrepresentation in the VSS 5 

and VSS 6 age classes; (4) forest structure and pattern and overall function would not be restored 

on 11,230 acres of grasslands and 45,469 acres of historic mollic-integrade savanna; and (5) 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

54 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

movement toward the desired condition of restoring the historic pattern within the pine-sage

mosaic would not be achieved in areas where treatment was deferred.

Eliminate the Use of Prescribed Fire 

The purpose of this alternative is to respond to public comment and the recommendation to 

eliminate all prescribed fire in order to remove project nuisance smoke and its resulting 

emissions. Recommendations include using livestock (cattle, goats) in lieu of prescribed fire to 

reduce fuels. This alternative assumes that approximately 90 percent of all treatment-related slash 

(biomass) would be moved offsite and considers grazing and a variety of mechanical treatment 

methods to reduce fuels.

This alternative was not analyzed in detail. After an initial analysis, it was determined that it 

would not meet various elements of the purpose and need, as described below. The purpose and 

need statement is displayed in bold text.

The purpose of the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest 

health, and vegetation composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest 

resiliency and sustainability, protect soil productivity, and improve soil and watershed 

function. Resiliency increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest to survive natural 

disturbances such as fire, insect and disease, fire, and climate change (FSM 2020.5). 

• Without the use of prescribed fire, forest structure could be affected in terms of moving 

toward age and size class diversity and forest health desired conditions. Without the 

thinning effect of fire, denser conditions could affect the VSS distribution trend by 

slowing stand development and growth. This would result in more of the landscape 

being maintained in the young forest stage. Contrary to the restoration purpose and need, 

development of the mature and old forest stages could be impeded. 

• Mechanical treatments would address the majority of conditions associated with densityrelated mortality, bark beetle hazard, and dwarf mistletoe infections. However, the 

pruning effect of fire sanitizing dwarf mistletoe infections would not be realized nor 

would reduced densities due to the thinning effect of fire be realized. This could lead to 

slight increases in bark beetle hazard and density-related mortality, contrary to resiliency 

and sustainability desired conditions.

• Without the use of prescribed fire, patterns of surface vegetation would continue to 

deteriorate as fire-adapted shrubs and herbaceous species decline (Huffman and Moore 

2008, Moir 1988). Eliminating fire would also have an effect on Gambel oak growth 

forms and densities. Currently, the Gambel oak population throughout the project area is 

dominated by seedlings and saplings. Without fire as a regulator of these smaller size 

classes, both the variety of oak growth forms and densities of seedlings and saplings 

would continue to be outside the range of oak’s evolutionary environment. This would 

be contrary to forest structure, pattern, and vegetation composition and diversity desired 

conditions. 

• Mechanical treatment on 434,001 acres in the project area would be effective at 

restructuring canopy bulk density, canopy base heights, tree density, and the 

arrangement of trees in the short term (immediately post-treatment). However, 

mechanical treatments alone would not be sufficient to produce effects that simulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous understory vegetation (vegetation 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 55

composition and diversity desired condition) or reduce the natural surface fuels that 

have accumulated since the interruption of fire on the landscape. Refer to the alternative 

D effects analysis in chapter 3 for a detailed example of the effects of eliminating 

prescribed fire as a restoration treatment.

• In this alternative, accumulations of litter, duff, existing dead and down woody debris, 

seedlings, and small saplings would not be reduced by mechanical thinning. These 

accumulations, in addition to the debris from logging (even with most biomass moved 

offsite), could result in surface fires that burn at high intensities and lethally scorch tree 

crowns. 

• Excessive surface fuels would promote surface fires that are likely to burn at high 

intensities and have effects that include the mortality of large and old trees on 62 percent 

or greater of the project area. In the project area, the potential to compromise water 

resources such as Oak Creek, Upper Lake Mary, or Mormon Lake would exist as second 

order fire effects occur (flooding, debris flows, erosion, etc.). This would be contrary to 

the need to reduce the potential for severe fire effects and move toward having a forest

that is resilient to wildfire.

• Other types of mechanical fuels treatments considered include: 

o Debris from chipping and shredding of trees and woody surface fuels would either 

remain on the forest floor or would be piled and moved offsite. Shredded or chipped 

wood at the surface has been shown to augment the already negative effects of 

excessive litter/duff that has accumulated, decreasing surface vegetation cover, 

particularly for native species (Miller and Seastedt 2004). Therefore, most materials 

would need to be piled and moved off the forests. 

o Mastication of trees and woody surface fuels produces a much wider variety of 

debris sizes. When the mastication debris is left on the forest floor, it does not cover 

the forest floor as completely as using the chipping method. Nonetheless, as with 

chipping, when the size of the project and the potential quantity of material to be 

masticated is considered, mastication would only be viable if debris is consolidated 

and removed. 

o Raking is a time-consuming method that is a way to treat the buildup of litter and 

duff. Leaf blowing would be a time-consuming method that would not be effective 

at removing a buildup of litter and duff. This method could be combined with raking 

as it may facilitate moving litter into piles which are then transported off the forests.

o Grazing as another method to reduce fuel loading that was suggested in public 

comment. Grazers would remove the herbaceous vegetation that helps carry a fire 

across the majority of the project area, but the herbaceous layer is only a minor 

contributor to fire effects when compared to needle cast, tree debris, and the trees 

themselves. Grazing to reduce fuel loading is much more effective in chaparral and 

scrubland habitats, which are rare within the project area.

o Within the larger 988,764-acre 4FRI project area, 791,250 acres are within grazing 

allotments. There are 47 active livestock (cattle and sheep) allotment management 

plans in place. The allotment plans address suitable forage areas and are designed to 

maintain or improve forest resources. These plans have conservative grazing 

utilization standards that range between 30 and 40 percent. Grazing systems include 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

56 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

both rest and deferred rotation. The use of these grazing systems can temporarily

reduce herbaceous fine fuels where grazing occurs. However, this use is not even 

throughout a pasture and the herbaceous vegetation and shrubby fuels regrow, 

normally within the same year.

o To replace the use of prescribed fire, livestock (cattle and goats) would have to be 

used on 593,211 acres (alternative C). Utilization rates would need to be greatly 

increased along with the length of graze periods within each pasture. This type of 

increased use would exceed what is currently permitted in the existing allotment 

management plans. There would likely be a decline in herbaceous species 

production and diversity, and possibly an increase in soil compaction across the 

project area. This is contrary to the purpose and need which is designed to increase 

the herbaceous understory and move toward improved function in soils, watersheds, 

grasslands, and forested areas. 

Summary: This issue would resolve Issue 1, prescribed fire emissions. It would be possible to 

use mechanical treatments to move biomass offsite and reduce surface fuels that would have been 

burned and produced smoke. However, mechanical treatment would not replace the role fire has 

in improving vegetation composition and diversity on: (1) 59,391 acres of existing grasslands, (2) 

over 56,000 acres of ponderosa pine with a savanna or grassland reference condition, (3) 

grassland inclusions within 308,000 acres of ponderosa pine forested areas, (4) 5,261 acres of 

pine-sage, (5) 1,471 acres of aspen, and (6) thousands of acres where Gambel oak exists within 

the pine forest.

Without the ability to use prescribed fire to: (1) stimulate understory vegetation growth, (2) 

reduce the natural surface fuels (that have accumulated since the interruption of fire on the 

landscape), and (3) maintain desired canopy base heights, canopy bulk densities, and reduced 

ladder fuel conditions (that were attained through mechanical treatment), it is estimated the 

project area would begin to move away from forest structure and pattern and resiliency desired 

conditions within 10 years of the mechanical treatment. The use of alternative fuels treatment 

methods in lieu of prescribed fire could provide reductions in fuels but would not meet the 

ecological need of a fire-adapted landscape. In the case of grazing, the level that would be needed 

to maintain the project area without fire would exceed forest plan allowable thresholds. Using 

grazing as a surrogate for prescribed fire would be contrary to the purpose and need which is 

designed to increase vegetation composition and diversity, and move toward improved soil 

productivity and watershed function.

Incorporate the Original 

Large Tree Retention Strategy (LTRS)

Overview: This alternative was not analyzed in detail. After an initial analysis, it was determined 

that incorporating/implementing the original LTRS would not meet various elements of the 

purpose and need. A modified version of the original strategy, the large tree implementation plan

(LTIP), was included in alternative C. The “background” section summarizes how the original 

LTRS was modified. Table 15 displays a few excerpts from the original LTRS, the location of the 

excerpts in the LTRS, a crosswalk to the modified LTIP, and rationale why the original language 

was not accepted as written. The complete crosswalk document is in the project record and will 

be made available on the 4FRI Web site.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 57

Background: The large tree retention strategy (hereafter referred to as LTRS) was developed by 

the four-forest restoration stakeholders in 2011 through a collaborative process. The intent of the 

LTRS exception process is to increase landscape heterogeneity and conserve biodiversity. The 

LTRS represents social agreement between parties and was developed to reduce conflict and 

enhance the chance of successfully implementing restoration at the landscape scale. The original 

LTRS defines large post-settlement trees as those greater than 16-inch diameter-at-breast height 

(d.b.h.). The LTRS provides direction for retaining large trees throughout the 4FRI landscape, 

except:

• As necessary to meet community protection and public safety goals, and 

• Where best available science and stakeholder agreement identify sites where ecological 

restoration and biodiversity objectives cannot otherwise be met. This specifically applies 

to several exception categories including wet meadows, seeps, springs, riparian areas, 

encroached grasslands, aspen groves or oak stands, within stand openings, and heavily 

stocked stands with high basal area generated by a preponderance of large, young trees.

Rationale for Considering but Eliminating the Original LTRS from Detailed Study:

• The original LTRS did not provide the ability to create regeneration openings using a 

group selection treatment method within the large, young tree (LTRS, pp. 23–24) and 

the within stand openings category (LTRS, pp. 21–22). We found that in the short term 

(0 to 10 years), this would result in a continued imbalance of size classes that would be 

contrary to the forest plan desired conditions in non-PFA goshawk habitat outside of nest 

stands. There would be no movement toward sustaining the older, larger trees into the 

future. The ability to provide for tree recruitment into the largest size classes would be

hindered. For this reason, the implementation plan includes the ability to create 

regeneration openings. 

• The original LTRS would have required the Forest Service to consult with stakeholders 

should a new exception category be found during implementation (LTRS, page 25). To 

resolve the potential for Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) violations, this 

consultation requirement was removed. The modified version includes language to 

address the concern without potentially violating FACA: During implementation 

(prescription development), if a condition exists that does not the meet the desired 

conditions included in the large tree implementation plan, no large trees would be cut 

until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision is reviewed by the Forest 

Service implementation team. The team would decide whether the action is consistent 

with the analysis and the decision made. This information would be made part of the 

annual implementation plan checklist/compliance review that is recommended by the 

team and approved by the forest supervisor.

• In the original LTRS, movement toward the desired condition in pine-oak was 

constrained to MSO habitat. This would preclude moving toward desired conditions in 

non-MSO habitat (LTRS, pp. 19–20). For this reason, the ability to move all pine-oak 

within the project area toward desired conditions was included in the large tree 

implementation plan. 

• The exception categories were translated into resource-specific desired conditions. This 

was completed because we found that the exception categories represented the majority 

of the landscape. An exception, by definition, is something that is not included in, or 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

58 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

does not fit into, a general rule. We spatially mapped the exception categories and found 

that true exceptions were a minor component of the desired condition strategy for 

managing post-settlement trees. For example, the geospatial mapping exercise found 

that around 54,358 acres of the proposed treatment area did not fit an existing resource 

(formally exception) category. Most acreage could be classified within the large, young 

tree category. The 54,358 acres noted above do not necessarily mean a new category has 

to be developed. Either the vegetation and geospatial data was not able to determine 

what category these acres should be placed in or it was expected, based on the 

vegetation data, that these acres could be moved toward desired conditions without 

needing to cut trees larger than 16-inch d.b.h. On-ground review and validation is 

planned to rectify the lack of information on these acres. Desired conditions were easier 

to translate into treatment design (see “Alternative C – Implementation Plan”). See table

15 which provides two examples of exception categories modified into desired 

conditions. 

• Other minor additions or variations are disclosed in the January 23, 2012, Summary 

LTRS Crosswalk to desired conditions document (see project record).

Limit Mechanical Treatments to 

16-inch d.b.h. as a Means to Preserve Large Trees

Background: This alternative originated over the impression that there are relatively few large 

trees remaining on the landscape and that the removal of large trees is a return to commerciallyfocused forest management.

In the past, within the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, diameter caps have been used 

to preserve large trees, often those over 16-inch d.b.h., leading to a so-called “16-inch cap.” In 

many cases, project level agreements were negotiated with local stakeholders to implement 

diameter caps. Diameter caps have since become a common practice on some national forests 

within the region. Recent projects on the Coconino NF with some form of diameter caps include 

Upper Beaver Creek and East Clear Creek. Many other recent projects on the Coconino NF and 

the southern part of the Kaibab NF have consider but eliminated a “16-inch cap” alternative due 

to it not meeting these specific projects’ purpose and need.

An alternative limiting mechanical harvest to trees less than 16-inch d.b.h. was not analyzed in 

detail for two reasons:

1. The 4FRI collaborative group developed and submitted to the Forest Service for 

consideration a large tree retention strategy (LTRS). The LTRS identifies situations where 

removing post-settlement trees larger than 16-inch d.b.h. would be ecologically 

beneficial. Key components from the 4FRI stakeholder strategy have been incorporated 

into alternative C’s implementation plan. 

2. Land managers and researchers throughout the Southwest have concerns that such a 

policy is unsustainable, and that constraining restoration treatments to 16-inch d.b.h. and 

less would limit achievement and maintenance of desired conditions for long-term forest 

structure, composition, and forest dynamics unique to the open tree canopy/multistoried 

conditions in the frequent fire forests of Arizona and New Mexico. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 59

Fire-adapted forest systems typical within the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service were 

historically driven by frequent fire burning through an herbaceous understory. This maintained 

open, uneven-aged conditions in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests. The purpose of 

the project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest health, and vegetation 

composition and diversity. There is a need to increase forest resiliency, protect soil productivity, 

and improve soil and watershed function. Resiliency increases the ability of the ponderosa pine 

forest to survive natural disturbances such as fire, insect and disease, and climate change (FSM

2020.5). In meeting desired conditions, restoration treatments proposed in the 4FRI project are 

designed to lower the overstory density and canopy continuity, and reestablish forest openings to 

provide for recruitment of younger age classes.

The publication “Diameter Caps and Forest Restoration” (USDA 2011) documents an evaluation 

of a 16-inch d.b.h. cut limit on achieving desired conditions and reports on the results of related 

studies. This publication synthesizes the concerns land managers and researchers throughout the 

Southwest have regarding a projectwide (programmatic) diameter cap. The main conclusion from 

that publication is that when managed using a 16-inch d.b.h. cut limit, the plurality of stands

would trend toward a large diameter, single story, closed-canopy condition. The ponderosa 

pine/grassland and the ponderosa pine/Gambel oak potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) 

considered in the USDA 2011 study are prevalent throughout the 4FRI project area and some of 

the forest inventory assessment (FIA) datasets used in the study are from the southern Kaibab NF 

and Coconino NF. 

The following discussion relates how a trend toward a large diameter, single story, closed-canopy 

forest condition would not meet many of the project’s desired conditions: 

• A trend toward a large diameter, single story, closed-canopy forest condition would result in 

homogeneous vegetation structure at the landscape scale. Structural characteristics would 

lack a mosaic of interspace, tree groups of varying sizes and forest structure with all age 

and size classes represented. Forest management under a diameter cap would result in a 

narrow range of forest structure and composition, thereby limiting future ability to manage 

for a restored forest condition. For these reasons, the purpose and need would not be met on 

most of the project area.

• Closed-canopy forests do not allow for the sustainable vigor/growth of old age trees. Under 

these conditions, old trees would be subject to density-related mortality, higher bark beetle 

hazard, and would be more susceptible to high-severity fires.

• Closed canopy, single-storied forests are more susceptible to density-related mortality, 

successful bark beetle attack, and provide conditions conducive to dwarf mistletoe spread 

and intensification.

• A trend toward single story, closed-canopy forest conditions would result in landscape scale 

homogeneity lacking diversity. Closed-canopy forest conditions do not allow for the 

sustainable growth of shade intolerant tree species (Gambel oak and aspen). Closed-canopy 

forest conditions do not provide canopy gaps to support robust understory vegetation for 

plant diversity.

• Closed-canopy, single-storied forest stands are more susceptible to crown fires and changes 

to fire regimes, as well as long-term conversion from forested plant communities to shruband herbaceous-dominated vegetation types (Savage and Mast 2005). 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

60 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 15. Large tree retention strategy and large tree implementation plan crosswalk

Original LTRS Statement

LTRS 

Reference 

Location

Rationale for Excluding Statement as Written in the 

(Modified) Large Tree Implementation Plan

Comparison Between Original and (modified) Large Tree Implementation Plan

The intention of the exception process is to increase landscape heterogeneity 

and conserve biodiversity. Thus, we do not support implementing any 

exceptions where removing the trees would conflict with existing 

recovery/conservation plan objectives for managing sensitive, threatened, or 

endangered species or their habitat. We also recognize there may be 

additional areas and/or circumstances where large trees need to be removed to 

achieve restoration. These circumstances should be identified through a site 

specific, agreement based, collaborative process as described in the 4FRI 

Charter. 

Page 4 of I. 

Old Growth 

Protection and

Large Tree 

Retention 

Strategy (OGP

and LTRS) 

Overview

This statement in the LTRS requires agreement-based exceptions for 

categories overlooked in the LTRS. This statement implies the Forest 

Service (FS) will need to seek approval for every tree cut that may be in 

an exception not currently covered. The FS cannot relinquish its 

decisionmaking authority. Additionally; when mapped, the exception 

categories described in the LTRS are shown to be common occurrences 

on the ground (they are the norm). 

III. Exception Process for Large Post-Settlement Tree Retention

The following section outlines a problem statement, specific identifying 

circumstances, ecological objectives, and selection criteria for instances in 

which large post-settlement trees may be cut to meet restoration objectives. 

At specific locations, large trees may need to be removed, felled, or girdled 

for purposes of ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation. The 

purpose of this section is to provide sufficient specificity to translate those 

exception categories where stakeholder agreement exists to do so into 

management actions and tree marking guidelines. For eight of the nine 

exception categories, programmatic recommendations describe the 

circumstances and criteria in which large post-settlement trees may need to be 

removed. For the “Heavily Stocked Stands with High Basal Area Generated 

by a Preponderance of Large Young Trees (or Large Young Tree)” exception 

category, getting to a higher level of social and scientific agreement entails 

more complexity and challenges, so we propose the initiation of additional 

collaborative discussion and planning that we hope will bolster restoration 

efforts by increasing confidence and knowledge sharing, maximizing 

agreement, and minimizing disagreement.

Exception 

Process, III. p. 

8, also see pp. 

9, 11, 13, 15, 

17, 19, 21, and 

23

The intent of this section (criteria for removing large trees) is addressed 

in design features (designed to meet forest plan requirements) and the 

alternative C implementation plan. These pages imply the Forest Service

would need to seek approval for every tree cut that may be in an 

exception category not currently defined. The Forest Service cannot

legally give its decisionmaking authority to an individual or group. On a 

project of this size, it would not be reasonable or practical to seek 

agreement on all marking when this requires silvicultural expertise. 

However, the implementation plan in the DEIS reflects collaboration 

with interested parties. It has been field tested with interested parties 

from the stakeholder group and with Agency foresters who routinely 

mark and administer vegetation projects. Modifications were made to the 

implementation plan as a result of the field reviews. In addition, the 

implementation plan reflects the incorporation of the stakeholder 

developed old growth protection strategy. This strategy is presented as 

the “Old Tree Implementation Plan” and was incorporated into all action 

alternatives.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab NFs 61

Original LTRS Statement

LTRS 

Reference 

Location

Rationale for Excluding Statement as Written in the 

(Modified) Large Tree Implementation Plan

Within Stand Openings Exception Category:

Ecological Objectives

1. Conserve and restore openings within stands to provide natural spatial 

heterogeneity for biological diversity.

2. Break up fuel continuity to reduce the probability of torching and 

crowning.

3. Restore natural heterogeneity within stands.

4. Promote snowpack accumulation and retention to benefit groundwater 

recharge and watershed processes at small scale.

Criteria

Large (>16′′ d.b.h.) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to 

restore the unique biophysical attributes of within stand openings according 

to these criteria:

1. When the presence of such trees would prevent the reestablishment of 

sufficient within-stand openings to emulate natural vegetation patterns 

based on current stand conditions, pre-settlement evidences, desired 

future conditions, or other restoration objectives, and 

2. Where desired openings are tentatively identified as ≥0.05 acre (these 

openings should be established wherever possible by enlarging current 

within stand openings or where small diameter trees are predominant), 

and

3. Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing 

recovery/conservation plan objectives for managing sensitive, 

threatened, or endangered species or their habitat.

NOTE: It is not necessary that within-stand openings and groups be located in 

the same location that they were in before settlement. That is, trees might be 

retained in areas that were openings before settlement, and openings might be 

established in areas that had previously supported pre-settlement trees.

pp. 21–22 This exception category does not allow cutting trees greater than 16 

inches for regeneration openings. Accepting this as written would violate 

the forest plans and the concept of a balance of age classes and sustained 

yield. The modified LTIP includes language that allows for regeneration 

openings and includes desired conditions related to implementing presettlement tree conservation measures. For an opening that is equivalent 

to 3/10 to 8/10 per acre, there could be a situation where you cannot 

provide the opening without cutting a tree that is greater than 16-inch 

d.b.h., because group selection is missing from the LTRS. It could force 

the placement of tree groups in sub-standard locations. The desired 

conditions for this category are as follows:

Modified Within-Stand Openings Desired Conditions

• The pattern of openings within stands that provide natural 

spatial heterogeneity for biological diversity are conserved. 

• Openings break up fuel continuity to reduce the probability of 

torching and crowning and restore natural heterogeneity 

within stands.

• Openings promote snowpack accumulation and retention 

which benefits groundwater recharge and watershed processes 

at the fine (1 to 10 acres) scale.

• The presence of such trees does not prevent the 

reestablishment of sufficient within-stand openings to emulate 

natural vegetation patterns based on current stand conditions, 

pre-settlement evidences, desired future conditions, or other 

restoration objectives.

• Groups of trees typically range in size from 0.1 acre to 1.0 

acre. Canopy gaps and interspaces between tree groups or 

individuals are based on site productivity and soil type and 

range from 10 percent on highly productive sites to as high as 

90 percent on those soil types that have an open reference 

condition.

• Suitable openings for successful natural regeneration in this 

project would range in size from 3/10 to 8/10 of an acre.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

62 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the no action (alternative A), the final 

proposed action (alternative B), and two additional alternatives (alternatives C and D). 

Alternatives C and D respond to recommendations and issues raised by the public. A brief 

summary of the alternatives is provided below. 

Alternative A is the no action alternative as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(c). There would be no 

changes in current management under the forest plans. Approximately 82,592 acres of ongoing 

vegetation treatments and 96,125 acres of ongoing prescribed fire projects would continue to be 

implemented adjacent to the treatment area. Approximately 86,771 acres of vegetation treatments 

and 142,869 acres of prescribed fire and maintenance burning would be implemented adjacent to 

the treatment area by the forests in the foreseeable future (within 5 years). Alternative A is the 

point of reference for assessing action alternatives B–D.

Alternative B is the proposed action. This alternative would mechanically treat 388,489 acres of 

vegetation and utilize prescribed fire on 587,923 acres. It incorporates comments and 

recommendations received during 8 months of collaboration with individuals, agencies, and 

organizations. It proposes mechanically treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. in 18 MSO PACs and 

includes low-severity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs, including 56 core areas. Three 

nonsignificant forest plan amendments on the Coconino NF and two nonsignificant forest plan 

amendments on the Kaibab NF would be required to be in compliance with the plans. 

Alternative C is the preferred alternative. This alternative would mechanically treat 434,001 

acres of vegetation and utilize prescribed fire on 593,211 acres. It responds to Issue 2 

(conservation of large trees) and Issue 4 (increased restoration and research). It adds acres of 

grassland treatments on the Kaibab NF, incorporates wildlife and watershed research on both 

forests, and mechanically treats and uses prescribed fire within the proposed Garland Prairie 

Research Natural Area on the Kaibab NF. It proposes mechanically treating up to 18-inch d.b.h. in 

18 MSO PACs and includes low-severity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs, including 56 core 

areas. Key components of the stakeholder created LTRS are incorporated into the alternative’s

implementation plan. Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments on the Coconino NF and three 

nonsignificant amendments on the Kaibab NF would be required to be in compliance with the 

plans. 

Alternative D would mechanically treat 388,489 acres of vegetation and utilize prescribed fire on 

178,790 acres. This alternative was developed in response to Issue 1(prescribed fire emissions). It 

decreases the acres that would receive prescribed fire by30 percent when compared to alternative 

B (proposed action). It proposes mechanically treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. in 18 PACs MSO

PACs but the PACs would not be treated with prescribed fire. Three nonsignificant forest plan 

amendments on the Coconino NF and two amendments would be required on the Kaibab NF to 

be in compliance with the plans.

Actions Common to Alternatives B–D 

• All action alternatives (B–D) propose additional actions including restoring springs and 

ephemeral channels, constructing protective fencing in select aspen stands, constructing 

(and decommissioning) temporary roads, reconstructing and improving roads, relocating 

a minimal number of road miles, and decommissioning existing roads and unauthorized 

routes (see table 1 in chapter 1). 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 63

• Design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation to be used as part of 

alternatives B–D are located in appendix C. 

• All action alternatives incorporate key components of the old tree protection strategy

into the alternative’s design features (appendix C), implementation plan (appendix D), 

and monitoring and adaptive management (appendix E). The Forest Service worked 

collaboratively with stakeholders to develop the monitoring and adaptive management 

and implementation plan.

• All action alternatives include adaptive management actions that would be taken as 

needed to restore springs, ephemeral channels, and naturalize decommissioned and 

unauthorized roads (table 16).

• All action alternatives address Issue 3, post-treatment canopy cover and landscape 

openness. Alternatives B–D are designed to meet canopy cover in VSS 4 to VSS 6 in 

compliance with the forest plans (except in areas managed for an open reference 

condition). Each alternative addresses the interrelationship between canopy cover and 

old and large trees.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs propose to conduct approximately 587,923 acres of restoration 

activities over approximately 10 years or until objectives are met. Up to 45,000 acres of 

vegetation would be mechanically treated annually. Up to 40,000 acres of prescribed fire would 

be implemented annually across the forests. Two prescribed fires7

 would be conducted on all 

acres proposed for treatment over the 10-year period. Restoration activities would:

• Mechanically cut trees and apply prescribed fire on approximately 388,489 acres. This 

includes: (1) mechanically treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. within 18 MSO PACs, (2) 

cutting 99 acres of trees by hand on slopes greater than 40 percent, and (3) using lowseverity prescribed fire within 72 MSO PACs (excluding core areas). 

• Utilize prescribed fire only on approximately 199,435 acres. 

• Construct 517 miles of temporary roads for haul access and decommission when 

treatments are complete (no new permanent roads would be constructed). 

• Reconstruct up to 40 miles of existing, open roads for resource and safety concerns (no 

new permanent roads would be constructed). Of these miles, approximately 30 miles 

would be improved to allow for haul (primarily widening corners to improve turn 

radiuses) and about 10 miles of road would be relocated out of stream bottoms. 

Relocated roads would include rehabilitation of the moved road segment. 

• Decommission 770 miles of existing system and unauthorized roads on the Coconino 

NF. 

• Decommission 134 miles of unauthorized roads on the Kaibab NF. 

• Restore 74 springs and construct up to 4 miles of protective fencing. 

• Restore 39 miles of ephemeral channels. 

• Construct up to 82 miles of protective (aspen) fencing. 

 

7 The first prescribed fire may include pile burning followed by a broadcast burn.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

64 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Allocate as old growth 40 percent of ponderosa pine and 77 percent of pinyon-juniper 

woodland on the Coconino NF and 35 percent of ponderosa pine and 58 percent of 

pinyon-juniper on the Kaibab NF.

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative B: 

Amendment 1 would add language to allow mechanical treatments up to 16-inch d.b.h. to 

improve habitat structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO PACs. The amendment 

would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 percent 

increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs as 

controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and posttreatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language would defer final project design 

and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for 

designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as target or 

threshold ( i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. 

Definitions of target and threshold habitat would be added. 

Amendment 2 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 29,017 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. 

Amendment 3 would remove the cultural resource standard that requires achieving a “no 

effect” determination and would add the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining 

standard. In effect, management would strive to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” 

determination. 

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement alternative B:

Amendment 1 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 27,637 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. 

Amendment 2 would allow for designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat in pineoak as target or threshold (i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the 

habitat. The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery 

unit to 10 percent increments and requires the selection of an equal number of untreated 

PACs as controls. The amendment would also remove language that references monitoring 

(pre- and post-treatment, population and habitat). Replacement language would defer final 

project design and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 65

Table 16. Alternative B–D springs, channels, and roads adaptive management actions

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

Roads and 

unauthorized 

routes located 

in upland (nonmeadow) and 

in meadows

Soils are in satisfactory 

condition so that soil can 

resist erosion, recycle 

nutrients, and absorb water. 

Understory species 

(grasses, forbs, and shrubs) 

diversity is consistent with 

site potential and provides 

for infiltration of water and 

reduction of accelerated 

erosion. The understory has 

a variety of heights of cool 

and warm season 

vegetation.

Up to 904 miles 

of road/route are 

in unsatisfactory 

soil condition due 

to accelerated 

erosion, lack of 

effective ground 

cover, and 

compaction.

1. Reestablish former drainage 

patterns, stabilize slopes, and 

restore vegetation;

2. Block the entrance to a road or 

install water bars;

3. Remove culverts, reestablish 

drainages, remove unstable fills, 

pull back road shoulders, and 

scatter slash on the roadbed;

4. Eliminate the roadbed by 

restoring natural contours and 

slopes; and 

5. Other methods designed to meet 

the specific conditions 

associated with the unneeded 

road.

• Miles of 

road 

treated

• Soil 

condition 

assessme

nt

Soil condition is 

impaired or 

unsatisfactory as 

defined in a soil 

condition

assessment. Time 

is 5 years after 

treatment.

• Additional 

drainage

• Additional 

revegetation 

efforts 

(including 

mulching)

• Short-term 

fencing to 

protect 

revegetation

• Complete 

removal of 

roadbed

Roads and 

unauthorized 

routes located 

in the filter 

strips of 

identified

riparian and 

nonriparian 

stream courses

Soils are in satisfactory 

condition so that the soil 

can resist erosion, recycle 

nutrients, and absorb water.

Understory species (e.g., 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs) 

diversity is consistent with 

site potential and provides 

for infiltration of water and 

reduction of accelerated 

erosion. The understory has 

a variety of heights of cool 

All roads are in 

unsatisfactory soil 

condition due to 

accelerated 

erosion, lack of 

effective ground 

cover, and 

compaction.

1. Reestablish former drainage 

patterns, stabilize slopes, and 

restore vegetation;

2. Block the entrance to a road or 

install water bars;

3. Remove culverts, reestablish 

drainages, remove unstable fills, 

pull back road shoulders, and 

scatter slash on the roadbed;

4. Eliminate the roadbed by 

restoring natural contours and 

slopes; and

• Miles of 

road 

treated

• Soil 

condition 

assessme

nt

Soil condition is 

impaired or 

unsatisfactory as 

defined in the soil 

condition

assessment. Time 

is 5 years after 

treatment.

• Additional 

drainage

• Additional 

revegetation 

efforts 

(including 

mulching)

• Short-term 

fencing to 

protect 

revegetation
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

66 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

and warm season 

vegetation. 

5. Other methods designed to meet 

the specific conditions 

associated with the unneeded 

road.

Undeveloped 

spring in a 

forested 

setting.

Vegetation and 

soils range 

from 

satisfactory 

condition 

(waterflow is 

occurring) to 

vegetation/

soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/ 

unsatisfactory

(there is no 

evidence of 

waterflow 

from spring).

Springs and associated 

streams and wetlands have 

the necessary soil, water, 

and vegetation attributes to 

be healthy and functioning 

at or near potential. 

Waterflow patterns, 

recharge rates, and 

geochemistry are similar to 

historic levels and persist 

over time. Water quality 

and quantity maintain 

native aquatic and riparian 

habitat and water for 

wildlife and designated 

beneficial uses, consistent 

with water rights and site 

capability. Plant 

distribution and occurrence 

are resilient to natural 

disturbances. Soils are in 

satisfactory condition.

Undeveloped 

springs occur on 

both forests in a 

forested setting. 

There are six 

springs on the 

Coconino NF that 

are located in 

forested areas, but 

the status of 

development is 

unknown.

If vegetation/soils are satisfactory 

options include: 

• Remove tree canopy to 

pre-settlement condition 

within 2–5 chains of the 

spring; 

• Apply for water right if 

none exists; 

• Prescribe burn, or 

• No action.

If vegetation/soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/unsatisfactory options 

include:

• Remove tree canopy to 

pre-settlement condition 

within 2–5 chains of the 

spring; 

• Apply for water right if 

none exists; 

• Remove noxious weeds; 

• Prescribe burn; or 

• Identify stressor and 

provide protection 

Properly 

functioning 

condition 

(PFC), 

Museum of 

Northern 

Arizona 

level 1 

monitoring, 

waterflow 

(possible 

new 

direction for 

spring 

monitoring 

from FS), 

photo points

Drop in PFC class, 

monitoring 

displays a 

dropping trend. 

Monitoring every 

1–10 years

• ID stressor, 

protect from 

stressor 

(fence/

jackstraw, 

close road, 

relocated 

road, etc.)

• No action
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 67

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

measure for the stressor 

(fence, jackstraw, 

remove/relocate 

road/trail etc.) and/or 

• Other methods designed 

to meet the desired 

conditions.

Developed 

springs in a 

forested 

setting.

Vegetation and 

soils range 

from 

satisfactory 

condition 

(waterflow is 

occurring) to 

vegetation/

soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/ 

unsatisfactory

(there is no 

evidence of 

waterflow

from spring).

Springs and associated 

streams and wetlands have 

the necessary soil, water, 

and vegetation attributes to 

be healthy and functioning 

at or near potential. 

Waterflow patterns, 

recharge rates, and 

geochemistry are similar to 

historic levels and persist 

over time. Water quality 

and quantity maintain 

native aquatic and riparian 

habitat and water for 

wildlife and designated 

beneficial uses, consistent 

with water rights and site 

capability. Plant 

distribution and occurrence 

are resilient to natural 

disturbances. Soils are in 

satisfactory condition.

There are 26 

springs on the 

Kaibab NF that 

are located in 

forested areas and 

the status of 

development is 

unknown.

There are 40 

developed springs 

on the Coconino 

NF that are 

located in forested 

areas.

There are six 

springs on the 

Coconino NF that 

are located in 

forested areas and 

the status of 

development is 

unknown.

Negotiate with holders of water 

rights that are non-Forest Service at 

Alto, Chimney, Dairy, Double, 

Garden, Griffiths, Howard, Little 

Elden, Lower Hull, Mud, Pat, 

Sawmill, Seven Anchor, and Upper 

Hill Springs on the Coconino 

National Forest and springs on the 

Kaibab NF to explore the 

possibility of releasing water above 

their water right for riparian 

conditions.

If vegetation/soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/unsatisfactory:

• Remove tree canopy to 

pre-settlement condition 

within 2–5 chains of the 

spring, 

• Prescribe burn,

• Remove existing water 

right (see list above) to 

expand current riparian 

PFC, 

Museum of 

Northern 

Arizona

level 1 

monitoring,

waterflow 

(possible 

new 

direction for 

spring 

monitoring 

from FS), 

photo points

Drop in PFC class, 

monitoring 

displays a 

dropping trend. 

Monitoring every 

1–10 years

• ID stressor, 

protect from 

stressor 

(fence/

jackstraw, 

close road, 

relocated 

road, etc.)

• No action
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

68 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

conditions, 

• Identify stressor and 

provide protection 

measure for the stressor 

(fence, jackstraw, 

remove/relocate 

road/trail etc.), and/or 

• Apply other methods 

designed to meet the 

desired conditions.

Undeveloped 

spring in a 

meadow 

setting.

Vegetation and 

soils range 

from 

satisfactory 

condition 

(waterflow is 

occurring) to 

vegetation/

soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/ 

unsatisfactory

(there is no 

evidence of 

waterflow 

from spring).

Springs and associated 

streams and wetlands have 

the necessary soil, water, 

and vegetation attributes to 

be healthy and functioning 

at or near potential. 

Waterflow patterns, 

recharge rates, and 

geochemistry are similar to 

historic levels and persist 

over time. Water quality 

and quantity maintain 

native aquatic and riparian 

habitat and water for 

wildlife and designated 

beneficial uses, consistent 

with water rights and site 

capability. Plant 

distribution and occurrence 

are resilient to natural 

Springs occur on 

the two national 

forests that are not 

developed and 

occur in a 

meadow setting. 

There is one 

spring on the 

Coconino NF 

(Scott Spring) that 

is located in 

meadow areas, 

but the status of 

development is 

unknown. There 

is one spring on 

the Kaibab NF 

that is located in 

meadow areas, 

but the status of 

If vegetation/soils are satisfactory: 

• Apply for water right if 

none exists, 

• Prescribe burn, and/or 

• Take no action.

If vegetation/soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/unsatisfactory:

• Apply for water right if 

none exists, 

• Remove noxious weeds,

• Prescribe burn, 

• Identify stressor and 

provide protection 

measure for the stressor 

(fence, jackstraw,

remove/relocate 

road/trail etc.), and/or 

PFC, 

Museum of 

Northern 

Arizona 

level 1 

monitoring, 

waterflow 

(possible 

new 

direction for 

spring 

monitoring 

from FS), 

photo points

Drop in PFC class, 

monitoring 

displays a 

dropping trend. 

Monitoring every 

1–10 years

• ID stressor, 

protect from 

stressor 

(fence/

jackstraw, 

close road, 

relocate road, 

etc.)

• No action
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 69

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

disturbances. Soils are in 

satisfactory condition.

development is 

unknown.

select 

• Other methods designed 

to meet the desired 

conditions.

Developed 

spring in a 

meadow 

setting.

Vegetation and 

soils range 

from 

satisfactory 

condition 

(waterflow is 

occurring) to 

vegetation/

soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/

unsatisfactory

(there is no 

evidence of 

waterflow 

from spring).

Springs and associated 

streams and wetlands have 

the necessary soil, water, 

and vegetation attributes to 

be healthy and functioning 

at or near potential. 

Waterflow patterns, 

recharge rates, and 

geochemistry are similar to 

historic levels and persist 

over time. Water quality 

and quantity maintain 

native aquatic and riparian 

habitat and water for 

wildlife and designated 

beneficial uses, consistent 

with water rights and site 

capability. Plant 

distribution and occurrence 

are resilient to natural 

disturbances. Soils are in 

satisfactory condition.

Springs occur on

the two national 

forests that are 

developed and 

occur in a 

meadow setting. 

There are four 

springs on the 

Coconino NF that 

are located in 

meadow areas and 

are developed.

If vegetation/soils are satisfactory: 

• Prescribe burn,

• Re-plumb spring to 

allow for water above 

existing water right to be 

released to expand 

current riparian 

conditions, and /or

• Other methods designed 

to meet the specific 

conditions associated.

If vegetation/soils are below 

potential or are 

impaired/unsatisfactory: 

• Prescribe burn,

• Remove noxious weeds, 

• Re-plumb spring to 

allow for water above 

existing water right to be 

released to expand 

current riparian 

conditions, 

• Identify stressor and 

provide protection 

PFC, 

Museum of 

Northern 

Arizona 

level 1 

monitoring, 

waterflow 

(possible 

new 

direction for 

spring 

monitoring 

from FS), 

photo points

Drop in PFC class, 

monitoring 

displays a 

dropping trend. 

Monitoring every 

1–10 years

• ID stressor, 

protect from 

stressor 

(fence/

jackstraw, 

close road, 

relocated 

road, etc.)

• No action
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

70 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Evaluation 

Criteria Desired Condition Existing Condition

Possible Management 

Actions*

Monitoring 

Measure

Trigger 

Indicating 

Additional 

Action is 

Needed 

(What/When)

Adaptive 

Options*

measure for the stressor 

(fence, jackstraw, 

remove/relocate 

road/trail etc.), and/or 

• Other methods designed 

to meet the desired 

conditions.

*Adaptive actions will need to be assessed to evaluate whether they are consistent with the NEPA analysis and decision made.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 71

Alternative B Tables and Figures

Table 17 describes treatments and provides treatment acres. Figure 26 displays the general 

locations of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. 

Table 18 provides acres by road treatment type and restoration unit. Figure 27 displays the 

general locations of road treatments. 

Table 19 provides acres of springs, channels, and aspen treatments by restoration unit. Figure 28

displays the general locations for these treatments. 

Table 20 and table 21 provide treatment type and acres in goshawk and MSO habitat. Figure 29

displays the general treatment locations. 

Table 22 and table 23 display the old growth allocation acres by forest, restoration unit, and 

vegetation type. Figure 30 displays the general location of the old growth allocation.

The map packet in appendix A provides all treatment maps at a larger scale for easier viewing.

Table 17. Alternative B mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres

Aspen Mechanical treatment that removes post-settlement conifers within 

100 feet of aspen clone; stimulates suckering. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire.

1,229

Prescribed Fire Only Prescribed fire would be applied exclusively to move treated areas 

toward desired vegetation conditions.

199,435

Grassland Restoration Mechanical treatment that removes encroaching post-settlement 

conifers and manages for up to 90 percent of the treatment area as 

grass/forb/shrub using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. 

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

11,185

Intermediate Thin (IT) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that thins tree groups and establishes 

interspace adjacent to tree groups to an average of 70–90 square 

feet of basal area and manages for improved tree vigor and growth 

by retaining the best growing dominant and codominant trees with 

the least amount of mistletoe; interspace would occupy 10–55 

percent of the treatment area, respectively. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire.

7,766

Intermediate Thin (IT) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

11,871

Intermediate Thin (IT) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

39,189

MSO Threshold Same as MSO Target 1,894

MSO Target Intermediate thinning (IT) designed to improve forest health, 

reduce fire risk, and meet forest density, structure, and species 

composition requirements. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

6,518

MSO Restricted Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure, irregular tree spacing, a mosaic of 

interspaces and tree groups of varying sizes. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire.

65,024

MSO PAC Mechanical treatment designed to increase tree vigor and health 

and create canopy gaps to reduce fire risk. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire.

10,741
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

72 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres

Pine-Sage Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density and 

pattern using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. 

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

5,261

Savanna

(70 to 90% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density and 

pattern, and manages for a range of 70–90 percent of the treatment 

area as interspace (grass/forb) between tree groups or individual 

trees using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. Treatment 

would be accompanied by prescribed fire.

45,469

Stand Improvement (SI) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that establishes tree groups and interspace 

adjacent to tree groups and manages for improved tree vigor and 

growth by retaining the best growing dominant and codominant 

trees within each group; interspace would occupy 10–55 percent 

of the treatment area, respectively. Treatments would be 

accompanied by prescribed fire.

1,914

Stand Improvement (SI) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

6,824

Stand Improvement (SI) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace)

12,309

Uneven-aged (UEA) 10

(10 to 25% interspace) 

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups 

of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 10–25 percent of the 

treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

18,204

Uneven-aged (UEA) 25

(25 to 40 % interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups 

of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 25–40 percent of the 

treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

39,244

Uneven-aged (UEA) 40

(40 to 55% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups 

of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 40–55 percent of the 

treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

101,044

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) Pinyon-Juniper 

Mechanical treatment around the community of Tusayan designed 

to reduce fire risk and meet community wildfire protection plan 

(CWPP) objective. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

535

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) 

(55 to 70% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure, and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups 

of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 55–70 percent of the 

treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

2,268
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 73

Figure 26. Alternative B general locations of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

74 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 18. Alternative B through D road activity miles by restoration unit (RU)

RU

Decommission

Temporary Road 

Construction and 

Decommission Reconstruction

–Relocation

Reconstruction

–Improvement8

Closed 

Roads

Unauthorized 

Roads Temporary Roads

1 205 0 110 2.2 8 

3 100 77 166 2.8 9 

4 185 33 198 1.1 9 

5 280 0 27 0 3 

6 0 24 15 3.3 1 

Total 770 134 517 10 30

*Temporary roads that are constructed would be decommissioned once implementation is complete. Gates or other 

devices would be used as needed to manage motorized access during implementation.

Table 19. Alternative B through D springs, riparian, ephemeral streams, and aspen

activities by restoration unit (RU)

RU

Springs 

Restoration

(Number)

Riparian Habitat 

and Ephemeral 

Stream 

Restoration 

(Miles)

Aspen

Restoration 

Mechanical 

Treatment

(Acres)

Aspen

Restoration 

Prescribed 

Fire

(Acres)

Aspen

Restoration 

Protective 

Fencing*

(Miles)

1 32 24 182 167 11

3 24 7 201 0 17

4 14 5 453 46 41

5 4 2 392 10 14

6 0 <1 0 0 0 

Total 74 39 1,229 223 82

*See appendix D for details on aspen treatment design.

 

8 Road reconstruction improvements are estimated miles for the restoration units. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 75

Figure 27. Alternative B–D general locations of road treatments
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

76 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 28. Alternative B–D general locations of spring and stream treatments
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 77

Table 20. Alternative B treatments in goshawk habitat

Treatment Type

Landscapes 

Outside of 

PFA (Acres)

PostFledgling 

Family 

Area (PFA)

(Acres)

Dispersal 

Post-Fledgling 

Family Area 

(dPFA)

(Acres)

Total Acres 

by Treatment 

Type

Uneven-aged (UEA)* 146,674 9,639 4,446 160,760

Intermediate Thinning (IT) 53,997 3,807 1,022 58,825

Stand Improvement (SI) 19,980 991 76 21,047

Savanna 45,469 0 0 45,469

Grassland 11,185 0 0 11,185

Pine-Sage 4,674 392 196 5,261

Prescribed Fire Only 86,933 8,733 1,299 96,965

Total mechanical treatment acres 281,979 14,828 5,740 302,548

Total prescribed fire treatment 

areas 368,912 23,561 7,039 399,512

*See appendix C and D for details on design features and mitigation for treatments within goshawk habitat.

Table 21. Alternative B summary of treatments in Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat 

Treatment Type* Protected 

(Acres)

Restricted 

(Acres)

Target and 

Threshold (Acres)

Total Acres by 

Treatment Type

Prescribed Fire Only 20,864 2,354 301 23,519

MSO Restricted 0 65,024 0 65,024

MSO Target 0 0 6,518 6,518

MSO Threshold 0 0 1,894 1,894

PAC -Mechanical 10,741 0 0 10,741

Total 31,605 67,378 8,713 107,696

* See appendix C and D for details on design features and mitigation for treatments within MSO habitat.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

78 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 29. Alternative B mechanical and prescribed fire treatments in goshawk and MSO

habitat

*LOPFA – Landscapes outside of PFAs.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 79

Table 22. Alternative B–D ponderosa pine old growth allocation acres and percent by 

forest and restoration unit

Restoration 

Unit

Ponderosa Pine Total 

Acres

Ponderosa Pine Old 

Growth Acres

Old Growth Percent

Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

1 145,793 NA 65,189 NA 45 NA 

3 58,327 70,898 21,341 25,177 37 36

4 56,981 77,320 17,718 30,342 31 39

5 61,671 NA 24,745 NA 40 NA 

6 NA 41,188 NA 10,291 NA 25

Total 322,772 189,407 128,994 65,810 40 35

Table 23. Alternative B–D pinyon-juniper old growth allocation acres and percent by forest

and restoration unit

Restoration 

Unit

Pinyon-Juniper Total 

Acres

Pinyon-Juniper Old 

Growth Acres

Pinyon-Juniper Old 

Growth Percent

Coconino NF Kaibab NF Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

Coconino 

NF

Kaibab 

NF

1 1,141 NA 611 NA 54 NA

3 832 3,201 356 1,747 43 55

4 42 7,123 42 4,116 100 58

5 8,771 NA 7,302 NA 83 NA

6 NA 2,206 NA 1,452 NA 66

Total 10,786 12,530 8,311 7,315 77 58
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

80 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 30. Alternative B–D ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper old growth allocation

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs would conduct restoration activities on approximately 593,211 

acres over a period of 10 years or until objectives are met. Up to 45,000 acres of vegetation would 

be mechanically treated annually. Up to 40,000 acres of prescribed fire would be implemented 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 81

annually across the forests. Two prescribed fires9 would be conducted on all acres proposed for 

treatment over the 10-year period. Restoration activities would: 

• Mechanically cut trees on approximately 434,001 acres. This includes: (1) mechanically 

treating up to 18-inch d.b.h. within 18 Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers, 

(2) cutting trees by hand on 99 acres on slopes greater than 40 percent, and (3) using 

low-severity prescribed fire within 72 Mexican spotted owl protected activity areas 

(including 56 core areas). 

• Utilize prescribed fire only on approximately 159,211 acres.

• Construct 517 miles of temporary roads for haul access and decommission when 

treatments are complete (no new permanent roads would be constructed).

• Reconstruct up to 40 miles of existing, open roads for resource and safety concerns (no 

new permanent roads would be constructed). Of these miles, approximately 30 miles 

would be improved to allow for haul (primarily widening corners to improve turn 

radiuses) and about 10 miles of road would be relocated out of stream bottoms. 

Relocated roads would include rehabilitation of the moved road segment. 

• Decommission 770 miles of existing system and unauthorized roads on the Coconino 

NF. 

• Decommission 134 miles of unauthorized roads on the Kaibab NF. 

• Restore 74 springs and construct up to 4 miles of protective fencing. 

• Restore 39 miles of ephemeral channels. 

• Construct up to 82 miles of protective (aspen) fencing. 

• Construct up to 15 weirs and 20 weather stations (up to 3 total acres of disturbance) to 

support watershed research. 

• Allocate as old growth 40 percent of ponderosa pine and 77 percent of pinyon-juniper 

woodland on the Coconino NF and 35 percent of ponderosa pine and 58 percent of 

pinyon-juniper woodland on the Kaibab NF. 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative C: 

Amendment 1 would allow mechanical treatments up to 18-inch d.b.h. to improve habitat 

structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO PACs. It would allow low-intensity 

prescribed fire within 56 MSO PAC core areas. The amendment would remove language that 

limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 percent increments and language that 

requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs as controls. The amendment 

would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and post-treatment, population, and 

habitat). Replacement language would defer final project design and monitoring to the FWS

biological opinion specific to MSO for the project. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for 

designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as target or 

 

9 The first prescribed fire may include pile burning followed by a broadcast burn.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

82 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

threshold ( i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. 

Definitions of target and threshold habitat would be added. It would allow 6,321 acres of 

restricted target and threshold habitat to be managed for a minimum range of 110 to 150 basal 

area. 

Amendment 2 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 29,017 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.

Amendment 3 would remove the cultural resource standard that requires achieving a “no 

effect” determination and would add the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining 

standard. In effect, management would strive to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” 

determination. 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement alternative C: 

Amendment 1 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 27,675 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.

Amendment 2 would allow for mechanically treating and using prescribed fire within 

approximately 400 acres of the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area. 

Amendment 3 would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 

percent increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated 

PACs as controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and 

post-treatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language would defer final project 

design and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for 

designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Kaibab NF as target or threshold 

(i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. Definitions of 

target and threshold habitat would be added. In restricted pine-oak habitat, it would allow 

2,090 acres of restricted target and threshold habitat to be managed for a minimum range of 

110 to 150 basal area. 

Alternative C Tables and Figures 

Table 24 describes mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and provides treatment acres. Figure 

31 displays the general locations of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. 

Proposed roads, springs, ephemeral channels, and aspen treatments are the same as described in 

alternative B (see table 18 and table 19, and figure 27 and figure 28). 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 83

Table 25 and table 26 provide treatment type and acres in goshawk and MSO habitat. Figure 32

displays the general treatment locations in goshawk and MSO habitat. 

Table 22 and table 23 display the old growth allocation acres by forest, restoration unit, and 

vegetation type. Figure 30 displays the general location of the old growth allocation. 

The map packet in Appendix A provides all treatment maps at a larger scale for easier viewing

Table 24. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres

Aspen Mechanical treatment that removes post-settlement conifers 

within 100 feet of aspen clone; stimulates suckering. 

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

1,229

Prescribed Fire Only Prescribed fire would be applied exclusively to move treated 

areas toward desired vegetation conditions.

159,211

Arizona Game and Fish 

Research

Mechanical treatment designed to create groups of various sizes 

ranging from 1 to 15 acres in size. Accompanied by prescribed 

fire.

4,837

Grassland Restoration Mechanical treatment that removes encroaching post-settlement 

conifers and manages for up to 90 percent of the treatment area 

as grass/forb/shrub using pre-settlement tree evidence as 

guidance. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

11,230

Grassland Mechanical Mechanical treatment in grassland vegetation types.

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

48,161

Intermediate Thin (IT) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that thins tree groups and establishes 

interspace adjacent to tree groups to an average of 70–90 square 

feet of basal area and manages for improved tree vigor and 

growth by retaining the best growing dominant and codominant 

trees with the least amount of mistletoe; interspace would 

occupy 10–55 percent of the treatment area, respectively.

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

7,766

Intermediate Thin (IT) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

11,858

Intermediate Thin (IT) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

39,039

MSO Threshold Same as MSO Target 1,894

MSO Target Intermediate thinning (IT) designed to improve forest health, 

reduce fire risk, and meet forest density, structure, and species 

composition requirements. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

6,516

MSO Restricted Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure, irregular tree spacing, a mosaic of 

interspaces, and tree groups of varying sizes. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire. 

63,191

MSO PAC Mechanical treatment designed to increase tree vigor and health 

and create canopy gaps to reduce fire risk. Accompanied by 

prescribed fire.

10,741

MSO PAC Grassland 

Mechanical

Mechanical treatment designed to reestablish the historic 

meadow edge as defined by the current forest structure of young 

trees encroaching around the meadow edge; retain large trees 

with long-lived characteristics. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

35
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

84 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres

Pine-Sage Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density

and pattern using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. 

Accompanied by prescribed fire.

5,261

Savanna (70 to 90% 

interspace)

Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density

and pattern, and manages for a range of 70–90 percent of the 

treatment area as interspace (grass/forb) between tree groups or 

individual trees using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. 

Treatment would be accompanied by prescribed fire. 

45,462

Stand Improvement (SI) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that establishes tree groups and interspace 

adjacent to tree groups and manages for improved tree vigor and 

growth by retaining the best growing dominant and codominant 

trees within each group; interspace would occupy 10–55 percent 

of the treatment area, respectively. Treatments would be 

accompanied by prescribed fire.

1,914

Stand Improvement (SI) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

6,824

Stand Improvement (SI) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

12,244

Uneven-aged (UEA) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree 

groups of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 10–25 percent 

of the treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

18,109

Uneven-aged (UEA) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace) 

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree 

groups of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 25–40 percent 

of the treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

39,176

Uneven-aged (UEA) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree 

groups of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 40–55 percent 

of the treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

95,712

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) Pinyon-Juniper

Mechanical treatment around the community of Tusayan 

designed to reduce fire risk and meet community wildfire 

protection plan (CWPP) objectives. Accompanied by prescribed 

fire. 

535

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) (55 to 70% 

interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree 

groups of varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 55–70 percent 

of the treatment area. Accompanied by prescribed fire.

2,268
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 85

Figure 31. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed fire treatments
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

86 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 25. Alternative C treatments in goshawk habitat

Vegetation Treatment 

Type

Landscapes 

Outside of 

PFA (Acres)

PostFledgling 

Family Area 

(PFA) (Acres)

Dispersal 

Post-Fledgling 

Family Area 

(dPFA) (Acres)

Total Acres 

by Treatment 

Type

Uneven-aged (UEA)* 146,040 9,616 4,446 160,102

Intermediate Thinning (IT) 53,834 3,807 1,022 58,662

Stand Improvement (SI) 19,915 991 76 20,982

Savanna 45,462 0 0 45,462

Grassland restoration within 

ponderosa pine 11,230 0 0 11,230

Pine-Sage 4,674 392 196 5,261

Prescribed Fire Only 87,879 8,755 1,299 97,934

Total mechanical treatment 

acres 281,154 14,805 5,740 301,699

Total prescribed fire treatment 

areas 369,033 23,561 7,039 399,633

*See appendix C and D for details on how treatments would be designed within goshawk habitat.

Table 26. Alternative C Treatments in Mexican spotted owl (MSO) Habitat

Treatment Type*

Protected 

Habitat 

(Acres)

Restricted 

Habitat

(Acres)

Target/Threshold 

Habitat

(Acres)

Total 

Treatment 

Acres

Prescribed Fire Only 25,714 4,187 303 30,204

MSO Restricted 0 63,191 0 63,191

MSO Target 0 0 6,516 6,516

MSO Threshold 0 0 1,894 1,894

PAC Mechanical 10,741 0 0 10,741

Total 36,455 67,378 8,713 112,546

* See appendix C and D for details on how treatments would be designed within MSO habitat.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 87

Figure 32. Alternative C mechanical and prescribed fire treatments in goshawk and MSO

habitat

*LOPFA – landscapes outside of goshawk PFAs.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

88 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative D

Alternative D responds to Issue 2 (prescribed fire emissions) by decreasing prescribed fire acres 

by 30 percent when compared to alternative B (proposed action). A select number of MSO PACs

would be mechanically treated but would not be treated with prescribed fire. All other 

components of the alternative are the same as described in alternative B.

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs would conduct restoration activities on approximately 567,279 

acres over a period of 10 years or until objectives are met. Up to 45,000 acres of vegetation would 

be mechanically treated annually. Restoration activities would: 

• Mechanically cut trees on approximately 388,489 acres. This includes: (1) mechanically 

treating up to 16-inch d.b.h. within 18 Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers, 

(2) cutting 99 acres of trees by hand on slopes greater than 40 percent, and (3) disposing 

of slash through various methods including chipping, shredding, mastication, and 

removal of biomass offsite. 

• Utilize prescribed fire only on approximately 178,790 acres. Up to 40,000 acres of 

prescribed fire would be implemented annually across the forests. Two prescribed fires 

would occur over the 10-year treatment period. 

• Construct 517 miles of temporary roads for haul access and decommission when 

treatments are complete (no new permanent roads would be constructed). 

• Reconstruct up to 40 miles of existing, open roads for resource and safety concerns (no 

new permanent roads would be constructed). Of these miles, approximately 30 miles 

would be improved to allow for haul (primarily widening corners to improve turn 

radiuses) and about 10 miles of road would be relocated out of stream 

bottoms. Relocated roads would include rehabilitation of the moved road segment. 

• Decommission 770 miles of existing system and unauthorized roads on the Coconino 

NF. 

• Decommission 134 miles of unauthorized roads on the Kaibab NF. 

• Restore 74 springs and construct up to 4 miles of protective fencing. 

• Restore 39 miles of ephemeral channels. 

• Construct up to 82 miles of protective (aspen) fencing. 

• Allocate as old growth 40 percent of ponderosa pine and 77 percent of pinyon-juniper 

woodland on the Coconino NF, and 35 percent of ponderosa pine and 58 percent of 

pinyon-juniper on the Kaibab NF. 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative D: 

Amendment 1 would add language to allow mechanical treatments up to 16-inch d.b.h. to 

improve habitat structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO PACs. The amendment 

would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 percent 

increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs as 

controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and post-
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 89

treatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language would defer final project design 

and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for 

designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as target or 

threshold ( i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. 

Definitions of target and threshold habitat would be added. 

Amendment 2 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 29,017 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. 

Amendment 3 would remove the cultural resource standard that requires achieving a “no 

effect” determination and would add the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining 

standard. In effect, management would strive to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” 

determination. 

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement alternative D:

Amendment 1 would add the desired percentage of interspace within uneven-aged stands to 

facilitate restoration in goshawk habitat (excluding nest areas), add the interspace distance 

between tree groups, add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, 

allow 27,637 acres to be managed for an open reference condition, and add a definition to the 

forest plan glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. 

Amendment 2 would allow for designating less than 10 percent of restricted habitat in pineoak as target or threshold (i.e., future nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the 

habitat. The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery 

unit to 10 percent increments and requires the selection of an equal number of untreated 

PACs as controls. The amendment would also remove language that references monitoring 

(pre- and post-treatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language would defer final 

project design and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project.

Alternative D Tables and Figures

Table 17 describes treatments and provides treatment acres. Figure 33 displays the general 

locations of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. 

Table 18 (see alternative B) provides acres by road treatment type and restoration unit. Figure 27

displays the general locations of road treatments. 

Table 19 (see alternative B) provides acres of springs, channels, and aspen treatments by 

restoration unit. Figure 28 displays the general locations for these treatments. 

Table 22 and table 23 (see alternative B) display the old growth allocation acres by forest, 

restoration unit, and vegetation type. Figure 30 displays the general location of the old growth 

allocation. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

90 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 28 and table 29 provide treatment type and acres in goshawk and MSO habitat. Figure 34

displays the general treatment locations. 

The map packet in appendix A provides treatment maps at a larger scale for easier viewing. 

Table 27. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed fire treatment descriptions and acres

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres 

Aspen Mechanical treatment that removes post-settlement conifers within 

100 feet of aspen clone; stimulates suckering. 1,229

Prescribed Fire Only Prescribed fire would be applied exclusively to move treated areas 

toward desired vegetation conditions. 178,790

Grassland Restoration Mechanical treatment that remove encroaching post-settlement 

conifers and manages for up to 90 percent of the treatment area as 

grass/forb/shrub using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance.

11,185

Intermediate Thin (IT) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that thins tree groups and establishes 

interspace adjacent to tree groups to an average of 70–90 square feet 

of basal area and manages for improved tree vigor and growth by 

retaining the best growing dominant and codominant trees with the 

least amount of mistletoe; interspace would occupy 10–55 percent of 

the treatment area, respectively.

7,766

Intermediate Thin (IT) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace) 11,871

Intermediate Thin (IT) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 39,189

MSO Threshold Same as MSO Target 1,894

MSO Target Intermediate thinning (IT) designed to improve forest health, reduce 

fire risk, and meet forest density, structure, and species composition 

requirements.

6,518

MSO Restricted Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure, irregular tree spacing, a mosaic of 

interspaces, and tree groups of varying sizes.

65,024

MSO PAC Mechanical treatment designed to increase tree vigor and health and 

create canopy gaps to reduce fire risk. 10,741

Pine-Sage Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density and 

pattern using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance. 5,261

Savanna 

(70 to 90% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that restores pre-settlement tree density and 

pattern and manages for a range of 70–90 percent of the treatment 

area as interspace (grass/forb) between tree groups or individual trees 

using pre-settlement tree evidence as guidance.

45,469

Stand Improvement (SI) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Mechanical treatment that establishes tree groups and interspace 

adjacent to tree groups and manages for improved tree vigor and 

growth by retaining the best growing dominant and codominant trees 

within each group; interspace would occupy 10–55 percent of the 

treatment area, respectively.

1,914

Stand Improvement (SI) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace) 6,824

Stand Improvement (SI) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 12,309

Uneven-aged (UEA) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of 

varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 10–25 percent of the 

18,204
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 91

Treatment Type Treatment Description/Objective Acres 

treatment area.

Uneven-aged (UEA) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of 

varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 25–40 percent of the 

treatment area.

39,244

Uneven-aged (UEA) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of 

varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 40–55 percent of the 

treatment area.

101,044

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) Pinyon-Juniper

Mechanical treatment around the community of Tusayan designed to 

reduce fire risk and meet community wildfire protection plan 

(CWPP) objectives.

535

Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) (55 to 70% 

interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) mechanical treatment designed to develop 

uneven-aged structure and a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of 

varying sizes. Interspace would occupy 55–70 percent of the 

treatment area.

2,268
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

92 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 33. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed fire treatments
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 93

Table 28. Alternative D treatments in goshawk habitat

Vegetation Treatment Type

Landscapes 

Outside of 

PFA (Acres)

PostFledgling 

Family 

Area (PFA)

(Acres)

Dispersal 

PostFledgling 

Family Area 

(dPFA) 

(Acres)

Total Acres 

by 

Treatment 

Type

Uneven-aged (UEA)* 146,674 9,639 4,446 160,760

Intermediate Thinning (IT) 53,997 3,807 1,022 58,825

Stand Improvement (SI) 19,980 991 76 21,047

Savanna 45,469 0 0 45,469

Grassland Restoration 11,185 0 0 11,185

Pine-Sage 4,674 392 196 5,261

Prescribed Fire Only 86,933 8,733 1,299 96,965

Total Mechanical Treatment Acres 281,979 14,828 5,740 302,548

Total Prescribed Fire Treatment Areas 86,933 8,733 1,299 96,965

*See appendix C and D for details on how treatments would be designed within goshawk habitat.

Table 29. Alternative D treatments in MSO habitat 

Treatment Type*

Protected 

Habitat

(Acres)

Restricted 

Habitat 

(Acres)

Target and 

Threshold 

Habitat (Acres)

Total 

Treatment 

Acres

Prescribed Fire Only 889 2,354 301 3,543

MSO Restricted 0 65,024 0 65,024

MSO Target 0 0 6,518 6,518

MSO Threshold 0 0 1,894 1,894

PAC - Mechanical 10,741 0 0 10,741

Total 11,630 67,378 8,713 87,721

* See appendix C and D for details on how treatments would be designed within MSO habitat.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

94 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 34. Alternative D mechanical and prescribed fire treatments in goshawk and MSO

habitat

*LOPFA – landscapes outside of goshawk PFAs. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 95

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 30 provides a summary of the alternatives and table 31 describes potential effects of 

implementing each alternative considered in detail. Information in this table focuses on effects 

related to the purpose and need for the project. See chapter 3 for detailed discussion of the effects 

and the specialists’ reports for the complete analysis.

Table 30. Summary of alternatives analyzed in detail 

Proposed 

Activity

Alt. A (No 

Action)

Alt. B (Proposed 

Action) Alt. C Alt. D 

Vegetation 

Mechanical Treatment

(acres)

0 388,489 434,001 388,489

Prescribed Fire (acres) 0 587,923 593,211 178,790

Mexican Spotted Owl 

(MSO) Protected 

Activity Centers 

(PACs) Habitat 

Treatments

NA Mechanically treat up 

to 16-inch d.b.h. in 

18 PACs (excluding 

core areas). 

Utilize prescribed fire 

in 72 MSO PACs 

(excluding core 

areas). 

Mechanically treat up to 

18-inch d.b.h. in 18 

PACs. 

Utilize prescribed fire in 

56 MSO PACs 

(including core areas). 

Utilize prescribed fire in 

16 MSO PACs 

(excluding core areas). 

Mechanically treat 

up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. in 18 PACs 

(excluding core

areas). 

Utilize prescribed 

fire in 72 MSO

PACs (excluding 

core areas). 

Springs Restored 

(number)

0 74 Same as alternative B

Springs Protective 

Fence Construction 

(miles)

0 Up to 4 Same as alternative B

Aspen Protective 

Fencing (miles)

Up to 82 Same as alternative B

Ephemeral Stream 

Restoration (miles)

0 39 Same as alternative B

Temporary Road 

Construction and 

Decommission (miles)

0 517 Same as alternative B 

Road ReconstructionImprovement (miles)NA Up to 30 Same as alternative B 

Road Relocation

(miles)

NA Up to 10 Same as alternative B 

Existing Road 

Decommission (miles)

NA 770 Same as alternative B 

Unauthorized Route 

Decommission (miles)

NA 134 Same as alternative B 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

96 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 31. Comparison of alternatives

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Vegetation Structure and Pattern

Age and Size 

Class

Even-aged: 46% Move even-aged 

stands toward an 

uneven-aged 

structure.

There is a 

distribution of ageclasses that 

comprise a 

sustainable balance 

of vegetation 

structural stages 

(VSS).

Alternative A does not 

meet the desired 

condition with even-aged 

stands remaining even 

aged.

Alternatives B–D meet the desired condition with even-aged stands 

trending toward uneven-aged.

Uneven-aged: 

54%

Alternative A does not 

meet the desired 

conditions with unevenaged stands trending 

toward even aged.

Alternatives B–D meet the desired condition with uneven-aged being 

maintained as uneven-aged.

Dominant 

representation is 

in the young 

(VSS 2) and 

mid-aged (VSS 

3) structural 

stages 

In all alternatives (immediately post-treatment), the dominant representation is in the young and midaged structural stages.

Low 

representation in 

the grass/forb/

shrub, seedling/

sapling, mature 

and old 

structural stages.

Low representation in 

the grass/forb/shrub, 

seedling/sapling, mature 

and old structural stages.

Alternatives B–D: Improved representation in the grass/forb/shrub, 

seedling/sapling, mature, and old structural stages. Trending toward a 

balance of structural stages.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 97

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Spatial 

Arrangement

Indicators:

High –Treatment 

acres with a high 

potential to attain 

desired 

conditions

Moderate – 

Treatment areas 

with moderate 

potential to attain 

desired 

conditions

Low to Very 

Low – Treatment 

acres with low or 

very low 

potential to attain 

desired 

conditions

Continuous tree 

canopy with 

generally small 

interspaces. 

Mosaic of 

interspaces and 

tree groups of 

varying sizes and 

shapes. 

Similar to existing. 

Trending toward a 

reduction of interspaces . 

Treatment acres (and percent) with relative ability to attain mosaic of 

interspaces and tree groups ranging from very low to high:

Very Low: 47,157

(9%)

Very Low: 52,007

(10%)

Very Low: 27,182

(6%)

Low: 120,363 

(24%) 

Low: 126,074

(25%) 

Low: 120,327 

(25%)

Moderate: 122,963

(24%) 

Moderate: 121,050

(24%) 

Moderate: 122,963

(25%) 

High: 216,725 

(43%) 

High: 211,215

(41%) 

High: 216,762 

(44%)

Heterogeneity: 

Percent of 

landscape

openness within 

ponderosa pine 

ranging from 

very open to 

closed or 

unknown

Very Open: 22%

Open: 22%

Moderately 

Closed: 29%

Closed: 45%

Unknown: 3%

Ranges from very 

open to closed. 

Desired openness

is determined by 

soils and site 

potential. 

Similar to existing 

condition, trending 

toward closed.

Percent of openness ranging from very open to closed to unknown:

Very Open: 11 Very Open: 11 Very Open: 11

Open: 31 Open: 30 Open: 31

Moderately Closed: 

42

Moderately Closed: 

42

Moderately Closed: 42

Closed: 15 Closed: 17 Closed: 11

Unknown: 1 Unknown: 0 Unknown: 5
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

98 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Large/Old Tree 

Structure

VSS 5 and VSS 

6 (large and old 

trees) are 

underrepresented 

across the 

landscape. 

Uneven-aged and 

composed of a 

distribution of age 

classes that 

comprise a 

sustainable balance 

of structural 

stages. Manage for 

old age (presettlement) trees 

such that old forest

structure is 

sustained over time 

across the 

landscape. 

Over time, old growth 

conditions improve in 

terms of meeting the 

minimum criteria but the 

sustainability of large/old 

trees may be impaired by 

density-related mortality 

and forest health issues. 

The MSO, goshawk, old growth, and forest health analysis indicates 

sustainability of the large/old tree component across the landscape would 

be improved. 

Forest Health

Stand Density Percent of 

maximum SDI by 

Habitat:

Density is below 

the zone where 

density-related 

mortality is 

prevalent (<56% of

maximum SDI). 

Managed, unevenaged forests range 

from 15–40% of 

maximum SDI.

Percent of maximum SDI by habitat (the desired condition is to have <56 of maximum SDI—

habitats meeting the desired condition is displayed in bold text):

MSO Protected: 

78

MSO Protected: 80 MSO Protected: 72 MSO Protected: 71 MSO Protected: 74

MSO

Target/Threshold: 

85 

MSO Target/Threshold: 

86 

MSO

Target/Threshold: 75 

MSO

Target/Threshold: 

71 

MSO

Target/Threshold: 76

MSO Restricted: 

69

MSO Restricted: 72 MSO Restricted: 37 MSO Restricted: 

37 

MSO Restricted: 46 

Goshawk 

Nest/PFA: 45

Goshawk Nest/PFA: 47 Goshawk Nest/PFA:

27

Goshawk 

Nest/PFA: 27

Goshawk Nest/PFA:

30

Goshawk non 

PFA (LOPFA): 40

Goshawk non PFA

(LOPFA*): 43

Goshawk non PFA

(LOPFA): 21 

Goshawk non-PFA

(LOPFA): 21

Goshawk non-PFA

(LOPFA0: 24
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 99

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Insect and 

Disease

Beetle hazard 

rating (percent of 

landscape) 

ranging from low 

to extreme

Low: 8

Moderate: 21

High: 71

Forest conditions 

are resilient to 

insect and disease.

Insect and disease 

populations are at 

endemic levels.

Beetle hazard 

ratings range from 

low to moderate

Beetle hazard rating (percent) (the desired condition is to have ratings range from low to 

moderate—conditions meeting the desired are displayed in bold text):

Low: 4

Moderate: 13

High: 83

Low: 38

Moderate: 36

High: 26

Low: 38

Moderate: 36

High: 26

Low: 28

Moderate: 26

High: 45

Dwarf mistletoe 

infection level 

ranging from 

none/low to 

extreme

None/Low: 66

Moderate/High: 

34 

Extreme: <1 

Dwarf mistletoe infection level (percent):

None/Low: 59

Moderate/High:41

Extreme: <1 

None/Low: 61

Moderate/High: 39 

Extreme: <1 

None/Low: 60

Moderate/High: 40 

Extreme: <1 

None/Low: 60

Moderate/High: 40 

Extreme: <1 

Vegetation Diversity and Composition

Gambel oak 112,546 acres of 

pine-oak MSO

habitat

Conserve oak and 

improve conditions 

that favor oak 

growth and 

establishment

Treatment acres that would actively reduce pine-oak competition:

0 65,024 63,191 65,024

Treatment acres within pine-oak MSO habitat that would release large oak:

0 84,177 82,344 84,177

Aspen 1,471 acres of 

aspen patches 

(within pine)

Maintain and/or 

regenerate aspen

patches

Acres of aspen maintained and/or regenerated:

0 1,452 1,471 1,452

Grasslands 48,196 acres of 

encroached 

grasslands

(mollisol soils). 

Restore grasslands. 

Enhance historic 

grassland 

inclusions within 

greater forested 

area including 

MSO restricted, 

goshawk PFA, and 

Acres of grassland enhanced and/or restored within: (1) encroached grasslands, (2) historic 

grasslands, (3) pine with an open reference condition, and (4) goshawk PFA, non-PFA, and MSO

restricted habitat:

0 (1) 0 (1) 48,196 0 

0 (2) 11,185 (2) 11,230 (2) Same as alt. B 

14,665 acres 

departed from 

0 (3) 45,469 (3) Same as alternative B 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

100 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

historic grassland 

conditions

non-PFA 

(LOPFA*) 

habitats. 309,926 acres of 

ponderosa pine 

with an open 

reference 

conditions (mollicintegrade soils). 

0 (4)310,917 (4) 308,199 (4) 305,657

Pine-Sage 16,000 acres of 

pine-sage potential 

vegetation

Maintain and 

enhance the sage 

understory. 

Restore the historic 

overstory/ 

understory pattern 

within the pinesage mosaic. 

Acres of pine-sage understory/overstory maintained and enhanced:

0 Alternatives B, C, and D: 5,262 acres

Landscape-scale forest resiliency and function in 

ponderosa pine

Improved vegetation structure, forest health and vegetation diversity and composition (acres):

0 501,208 510,346 487,233

Forest Resiliency and Sustainability – Fire Behavior

Crown Fire 34% Up to 10% 35% (2020) 5% (2020) 4% (2020) 7% (2020)

Surface fire 64%

2% (NA – not 

burnable)

90% 64% (2020) 

1% NA – not burnable

94% (2020)

1% NA – not 

burnable

94% (2020)

2% NA – not 

burnable

92% (2020

1% NA – not burnable

Fire Regime 

Condition Class

(FRCC) 

14% FRCC 1

27% FRCC 2

59% FRCC 3

100% FRCC 1

0% FRCC 2

0% FRCC 3

11% FRCC 1

19% FRCC 2

70% FRCC 3

18% FRCC 1

78% FRCC 2

4% FRCC 3

19% FRCC 1

81% FRCC 2

0% FRCC 3

8% FRCC 1

82% FRCC 2

10% FRCC 3
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 101

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Landscape-Scale 

Forest Resiliency 

and Function

Alternative A: The combination of abundant and continuous canopy fuels, the lack of understory vegetation, and an already high and increasing 

surface fuel load would combine with high potential for high-severity fire, and maintain the area in a FRCC of 3 into the foreseeable future. There 

would be no movement toward resiliency and improved function. Alternatives B, C, and D move toward FRCC desired conditions in the short term 

(2020). Alternatives B, C, and D meet crown and surface fire desired conditions in the short term (2020). Movement toward the desired conditions in 

Alternatives B, C, and D equates to movement toward improved resiliency and function.

Watershed Function

Overall 

Watershed 

Condition (within 

the analysis area)

22% functioning 

properly, 

46% functioning 

at risk, 

32% impaired.

Moving toward or 

at functioning 

properly. 

Having high percentages 

of functioning at risk and 

impaired watersheds

continues.

Alternatives B and C: 23% of functioning at risk watersheds (i.e., nearly 

1⁄4 of the 58% that are currently functioning at risk would move toward

functioning properly) and 42% of impaired watersheds would improve 

(i.e., 42% of the current 22% impaired would move toward functioning 

properly). Under alternative D, 18% of functioning at-risk watersheds 

(i.e., nearly 1/5th of the 58% that are currently functioning at risk would 

move toward functioning properly) and 34% of impaired watersheds (i.e., 

about a 1/3rd of the 22% that are currently impaired would move toward

functioning properly) would improve. Alternative D would not improve 

overall watershed condition as extensively as alternatives B and C.

Approximately 496 miles of road are decommissioned in functioning atrisk watersheds and 226 miles in impaired function watersheds. Stream 

channel treatments improve waterflow regime on 19 miles of functioning 

at risk and 9 miles in impaired watersheds.

Ephemeral 

Channels

Reduced function 

in 39 miles of 

degraded channel. 

Proper functioning 

condition. 

Static to downward trend 

in function over time. 

Alternatives B–D: Disturbance would range from 2 to 108 acres in 

subwatersheds (1% of treatment area). Potential short-term increases in 

sediment production that could adversely impact surface water quality and 

riparian conditions are minimized or mitigated.

Springs Reduced 

discharge in 74 

springs.

Soil, water, and 

vegetation attributes 

are present and 

allow springs to be 

healthy and 

functioning at or 

near potential. 

Static to downward trend

in functional condition.

Alternatives B–D: A slight increase in groundwater recharge and spring 

discharge would be expected in years 1 to 3. Long-term hydrologic 

response would be dependent on the summed effect of the changes in 

evaporation, transpiration, soil moisture storage, snowpack accumulation 

and melt processes, and presence or absence of drought conditions.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

102 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Water Quantity Water yield in 

ponderosa pine 

is likely reduced 

from historic 

conditions due to 

forest ingrowth 

and dense stand 

conditions 

resulting in 

increased 

yearlong 

evapotranspiration rates.

Increased 

streamflow as 

measured at stream 

gages installed at 

locations 

downstream of 

proposed treatment 

area. 

No change. There is the 

potential for increased 

storm water runoff and 

flooding downstream of 

areas burned in wildfires.

Water yield would be 

expected to increase 

only slightly in areas 

where vegetation 

treatments remove 25 

to 50 percent of the 

overall tree canopy 

cover within a given 

watershed (Troendle 

et al. 2001, Burton 

1997, Swank 1989, 

Baker 1999, 2003, 

Ffolliott et al. 1989, 

Miller 2007). Snow 

interception by tree 

canopies would be 

reduced, leading to 

increased snowpack 

in forest openings.

Water yield would 

be expected to be 

slightly higher than 

under alternative B. 

There would be 

more forest 

openings and less 

dense forest 

conditions. Snow 

interception by tree 

canopies would be 

reduced, increasing 

the winter 

snowpack.

Same as alternative B. 

Surface Water 

Quality 

There are no 

impaired streams 

within the 

project area. A 

segment of Oak

Creek (0.25 

mile) is outside 

of the project 

boundary, 

downstream of 

the treatment 

area, and listed 

as impaired.

Meet Arizona 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ)

water quality 

standards.

No change. There would 

be the potential for

adverse effects from 

wildfire.

Short-term adverse 

impacts from soil 

disturbance would 

average 3.3% at the 

6th code HUC scale. 

There would be longterm improvement. 

Short-term adverse 

impacts from soil 

disturbance would 

average 3.4% at 6th

code HUC scale. 

There would be

long-term 

improvement. 

Short-term adverse 

impacts from soil 

disturbance would 

average 2.9% at 6th

code HUC level. There 

would be long-term 

improvement. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 103

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Riparian Areas There is reduced 

water yield.

Ponderosa pine 

is compromising 

the integrity of 

riparian areas by 

reducing spring 

discharge rates 

and stream 

channel flow. 

Vegetation, 

landforms, soil 

condition, and 

woody debris 

dissipate water 

energy, filter 

sediment, capture 

bedload, and 

contribute to 

favorable flood

plain development. 

There is improved 

floodwater 

retention and 

groundwater 

recharge.

Reduced riparian area 

and wetland function are 

possible under 

alternative A.

Riparian and wetland 

function would 

improve through 

increased 

groundwater 

recharge, improved 

surface flows, and 

spring restoration.

Riparian and 

wetland function

would improve 

slightly more than 

under alternatives B 

and D since more 

acres would receive 

mechanical 

vegetation 

treatments than in 

alternative B.

Riparian and wetland 

function would 

improve under 

alternative D, but to a 

lesser degree than 

under alternatives B 

and C. Fewer acres 

would receive 

prescribed fire. Fire 

would have reduced 

vegetative cover which 

would reduce rainfall 

interception, and 

evapotranspirational 

losses.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

104 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Indicator Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Soil Productivity and Function

Soil Erosion/Soil 

Productivity

See chapter 3 

“Soils” section and 

soils report for 

details. 

Long-term soil 

productivity is 

protected by 

maintaining or 

improving soil 

condition and 

function. 

Soil condition 

and function is 

maintained or 

improved toward 

satisfactory.

Maintain soil 

disturbance below 

target threshold 

level (15%). 

See chapter 1 for 

detailed desired 

conditions

Soil disturbance would range

from 0 to 33% due to fire risk. 

There would be no 

improvement or protection of 

soil condition and productivity.

Alternatives B–D: No watershed would have soil disturbance above 

11%, which is 4% below the 15% threshold. Therefore, soil productivity 

should be maintained at the watershed level. Thinning stands and 

prescribed burning would increase understory response on about 

388,500 acres. Using prescribed fire only on about 199,400 acres would 

decrease wildfire threat and improve soil condition and productivity on 

about 587,923 acres.

Landscape-Scale 

Forest Resiliency 

and Function 

Alternative A would not increase forest resiliency to natural disturbances and would not improve soil or watershed function because watersheds would be at 

risk of continued uncharacteristic wildfires. Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain or improve long-term soil productivity and watershed function. 

Vegetation treatments at the watershed scale combined with prescribed burning could restore or improve hydrologic function of 74 springs and select 

channels.

*LOPFA – landscapes outside of goshawk post-fledgling family areas or non-PFAs. 
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 105

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented here. Only 

summaries are provided for each resource and all resource reports are incorporated by reference. 

Most specialist reports will be available for viewing on the 4FRI Web site: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/4fri. Those not on the Web site can be made available upon request.

Soils and Watershed

The soils specialist report (Steinke 2013) and water quality and riparian report (MacDonald 2013) 

are incorporated by reference. See the reports for detailed information including methodology, 

soil disturbance by treatment type, treatment area, and 6th hydrologic unit code (HUC) 

watersheds, the disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) soil erosion modeling runs, 

soil interpretations by 6th HUC watershed, strata, and terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) map 

units, and the data used to evaluate the cumulative effects to soil disturbances.

Affected Environment

Soils

Approximately 94 TES map units were aggregated into 17 strata (specialist report, appendix B). 

The aggregation of strata was based on similar soils and vegetation types with similar limitations, 

hazards, and production potentials to management activities. The strata were used in part to 

design treatments, analyze effects, and are based on the potential plant community (hereafter 

referred to as PPC) and capability of the soils. Short term for soils is considered 3 years (when 

leaf fall occurs) up to 10 years. Long term is considered greater than 10 years.

Soil Erosion

Forests generally have very low erosion rates unless they are disturbed. Common disturbances 

include prescribed fire, wildfire, and harvesting operations. Vegetative recovery after fuel 

treatments is generally very rapid, with erosion rates typically dropping to pre-fire levels within 1 

to 2 years (Elliot et al. 2010). After that, the rapid regrowth of vegetation soon covers the surface 

with plant litter, and potential erosion is quickly reduced. In one study, Robichaud and Brown 

(1999) reported that erosion rates dropped from almost 40 Mg ha-1 (megagrams per hectare) the 

1st year after a fire to 2.3 Mg ha-1 the 2nd, and 1 Mg ha-1 the 3rd year. If the year is normal or dry, 

then it is unlikely for there to be any significant erosion (Elliot 2000). 

A (soil) tolerance soil loss rate is the rate of soil loss than can occur while sustaining inherent site 

productivity (TES 1995). Tolerable soil loss values are 2 to 4 tons per acre depending on soil 

type. Some steep slopes greater than 40 percent have soil inclusions with tolerable soil loss values 

equal to about 1 ton per acre, but the inclusions are generally minor in extent and generally occur 

on slopes that are less than 15 percent.

When soil loss exceeds tolerable amounts, soils erode faster than they renew themselves. This 

results in accelerated soil loss, loss of soil productivity, and delivers high amounts of sediment to 

connected stream courses. On slopes greater than about 40 percent, the TES identified tolerable 

limit is 2 tons per acre per year.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Soils in each TES ecological unit were assigned tolerance soil loss rates based on individual soil 

and climate properties and approximate annual soil renewability levels. Maintaining soil erosion 

below soil tolerance levels assures soil productivity will be maintained from an erosion 

standpoint. 

Within the analysis area (988,764 acres), a total of approximately 133,850 acres (13 percent) are 

dominated by soils with severe erosion hazard. About 52,750 acres (5 percent) have soils 

dominated with moderate erosion hazard. Strata with slight erosion hazard equates to about 

805,700 acres (81 percent). Resource protection measures are required to assure accelerated soil 

erosion and compaction do not impair soil productivity.

Most strata in the ponderosa pine type currently have closed stand structure (Steinke 2007ab, 

McCusker 2013, Lata 2013) with high canopy covers and densities that have reduced the 

understory forage productivity. However, there is generally sufficient vegetative ground cover to 

reduce accelerated erosion. Due to the closed stand structure, most strata have relatively high risk 

of crown fire that also pose a high risk of moderate or high burn severity to the watershed under 

normal or extreme fire behavior conditions as the current fire regime condition class (FRCC) in 

the analysis area is dominated by class 2 and 3 (see specialist report for 6th HUC watershed 

condition classification). 

Soil Condition

Slopes Less than 40 Percent: Soil condition is satisfactory on about 841,500 acres 

(approximately 85 percent of the analysis area) due to the presence of high and adequate amounts 

of vegetative ground cover that protects the soil against accelerated erosion and compaction. The 

other 15 percent of the analysis area is dominated by impaired soils located on some montane 

meadows, and lesser amounts of inherently unstable/unsuited or unsatisfactory soils.

Although most soils rate out as satisfactory, nutrient cycling is reduced and soil conditions are 

close to being impaired in dense stands including those in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 2 

and 3. In these areas, the amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) is not quantifiable. 

Slopes Greater than 40 Percent: Soil condition on approximately 30,000 acres (strata 42, 43, 47, 

and portions of 44 and 45) is unsuited or inherently unstable where natural erosion exceeds 

tolerable erosion. These soils and strata are not suitable for mechanical timber harvesting and 

identified BMPs would need to be used to protect the soil resource when using prescribed fire. 

Montane Meadows: Soil condition on slightly more than 50 percent of the montane meadow 

acres (strata 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10) are impaired on the Coconino NF and listed as satisfactory on the 

Kaibab NF (about 44,476 acres). However, it is probable that the soil condition in these montane 

meadows is impaired on the Kaibab NF. Soil condition in montane meadows located in strata 3, 

5, 7, and 8 (about 38,744 acres) is satisfactory. 

Wetlands: Strata 9 are wetlands where soil condition is rated as unsatisfactory on the Coconino 

NF. Most wetlands on the Kaibab NF are fenced to exclude livestock grazing in wetlands. 

Wetland soils on the Kaibab NF are generally impaired as a result of elk bedding and browsing 

(about 4,400 acres). 

Pinyon-Juniper: Soil condition on pinyon-juniper vegetation types on slopes less than 40 percent 

(strata 46, about 1,000 acres) is variable and has areas of satisfactory, impaired, and a few areas 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 107

of unsatisfactory soil condition. Impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions generally have 

overstocked tree canopy, resulting in poor herbaceous understory composition and productivity, 

poor nutrient cycling function, low vegetative ground cover, and accelerated erosion. 

Soil Classification

Soil classification varies by strata (see soils report, appendix B) and is dominated by forest soils 

in the Alfisol order (boralfs suborder), and grassland soils in the Mollisols order (borolls 

suborder), and ponderosa pine forests strata where stand density has drastically increased.

Based on soil type and field observations of tree canopy cover (which is variable but commonly 

exceeds 30 to 50 percent, a closed canopy state), age class, and old stump presence, mollisols 

(especially deep ones) probably historically supported grassy interspaces or open canopy covers 

(10 to 30 percent) and mollic integrade soils probably supported somewhat closed stands (slightly 

greater than 30 percent) on rocky or shallow soils and open stands on moderately deep and deep 

soils. See the specialist report for detailed soils information and a Coconino NF (Steinke 2007a) 

and Kaibab NF (Steinke 2007b) study on mollisol and mollic-integrade soils.

Watershed

Watershed Function

The project lies within 82 6th code watersheds (see appendix C of the soils report). Fifth and 6th

HUC names, watershed condition class, and acres within and outside of the proposed treatment 

area (alternative B) are listed. The watershed condition framework (WCF) protocol (USDA 

2010b) was used to classify watershed conditions at the 6th HUC level in the spring of 2011 using 

12 watershed indicators. The term “analysis area” refers to the larger 988,764-acre boundary. 

Overall, the ponderosa pine vegetation type is dominated by functional at-risk 6th HUC 

watersheds. This includes about 451,500 acres (46 percent of the analysis area) and about 

1,214,339 acres, or about 59 percent of the entire 6th HUC acreage associated with the project 

acres. There are several impaired watersheds, about 316,800 acres (about 32 percent of the 

analysis area) and about 458,391 acres, or about 22 percent of the entire 6th HUC acreage 

associated with the project acres. There are a few properly functioning watersheds about 220,400 

acres (about 22 percent of the analysis area) and about 394,285 acres, or about 19 percent of the 

entire 6th HUC acreage associated with the project acres. Functioning condition was defined using 

12 indicators to assess watershed condition through the WCF (USDA 2011). Watershed 

dysfunction in the treatment area is a result in large part from dense forests with FRCC 2 or 3, 

high density of road networks that can alter hydrology, road proximity to stream courses, and 

riparian condition less than functional and other factors. 

The following 5th HUC watersheds have few to several 6th HUC watersheds in the impaired 

function condition class totaling at least 33 percent of total 5th HUC area: Cataract Creek Rio de 

Flag, Spring Valley, Sycamore Creek, Upper Cedar Wash, and Walnut Creek. See appendix C in 

the specialist report for detailed condition class by 6th HUC watershed and acres.

Water Quality and Quantity

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2006/2008 Impaired Waters List 

indicates there are no impaired streams within the project area. However, a segment of Oak Creek 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

that is located approximately 0.25 mile outside of the project boundary and downstream of 

proposed treatment areas has been listed as impaired in the ADEQ 2006/2008 305(b) assessment 

report for two exceedances of the Escherichia coliform (E. coli) single sample maximum (SSM) 

water quality standard.

The ADEQ identified Upper and Lower Lake Mary as impaired for the presence of mercury in 

fish tissue. Although Upper and Lower Lake Mary are designated as domestic water sources, the 

levels of total mercury observed do not approach drinking water maximum contaminant levels. In 

2002, the EPA added five lakes in the Lake Mary Region (LMR) to Arizona’s 303(d) List as 

impaired for mercury in fish tissue. These lakes included Upper and Lower Lake Mary, Soldiers, 

Soldiers Annex, and Lower Long Lakes and are all within the project area (ADEQ 2006, 2008). 

Water yields from the ponderosa pine vegetation type are likely reduced from historic conditions 

due to increased stand densities that result in higher evapotranspiration rates.

Stream Courses

Approximately 2,197 miles of stream courses occur within the 988,764-acre analysis area, of 

which approximately 8.2 miles exhibit perennial flow. The three perennial stream segments 

within the analysis area include the Rio de Flag, Pumphouse Wash, and Sawmill Wash. Appendix 

B in the water quality specialist report lists stream reaches that occur within the analysis area and 

their associated lengths and flow regimes. The ephemeral stream courses are classified as 

intermittent in the National Hydrology Data.

There are approximately 77.5 miles of protected stream courses in the analysis area. These are 

areas where specific soil and water conservation practices (SWCP) and best management 

practices (BMPs) have been developed to prevent adverse impacts to stream courses (see the 

“Soils and Watershed” section of appendix C). Appendix G in the specialist report provides a list 

of the protected stream courses within the analysis area, their associated functional condition 

classes and lengths, and a map of the locations. 

Riparian stream segments occur along 92.6 miles of streams within the analysis area. Of these, 

approximately 85.1 riparian miles (91 percent) occur on the Coconino NF and 7.5 riparian miles 

(9 percent) occur on the Kaibab NF. Appendix C in the specialist report provides a list of riparian 

areas by stream reach or name and their associated conditions within the analysis area. Within the 

analysis area, approximately 47.5 miles of streams are in proper functioning condition, 38.6 miles 

are functioning at risk, and 6.6 miles are nonfunctional. 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, Springs, Flood Zones, and Road Influences

There are 66 natural lakes, reservoirs, and natural wetland depressions within the analysis

boundary that impound water for a sufficient duration to exhibit some wetland characteristics; 

therefore, they are listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands 

Inventory database. See table 1 in appendix C of the water quality and riparian report for the list 

of riparian stream reaches in the analysis area, their associated lengths, and size and condition 

rating. Tables 1 and 2 in appendix D of the specialist report lists wetland habitats and their 

associated condition ratings.

There are approximately 145 springs located within the analysis area. Information regarding 

historic flow or water quality from these springs is minimal. Many springs exhibit downward 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 109

trends or static-degraded conditions (MacDonald 2011). See the “Springs” section in chapter 1 for 

existing and desired condition information and appendix D in the specialist report for spring 

assessment information. 

There are approximately 986,509 acres within the analysis area that are categorized into various 

flood zone types. See the specialist report for additional information. 

Many roads in the analysis area are inadequately engineered or poorly located on the landscape 

and are consequently in a state of disrepair. See the “Transportation” section in chapter 1 for 

additional information on existing and desired road conditions. 

Environmental Consequences

Soils and watershed environmental consequences are presented in both narrative and table format. 

Soils and Watershed

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

According to the fire specialist report (Lata 2013), about 33 percent of ponderosa pine forest 

vegetation could burn under high-burn severity conditions. This varies slightly from WEPP soil 

erosion modeling, which indicated approximately 24 percent of all soils left untreated could be 

subject to soil erosion above tolerable levels from severe wildfires where all soils burned under a 

high burn severity condition. Based on recent wildfires, 33 percent is a good and approximate 

average of high-burn severity in wildfires from a watershed burn severity standpoint. 

Therefore, if a 1,000-acre fire were to occur within the analysis area, approximately 200 to 300 

acres of high-intensity fire could negatively affect soil properties. High-burn severity from Lata 

2013 is an assessment of overstory vegetation and for this soil assessment, high severity is based 

on the vegetative ground cover present since that is what controls the runoff and watershed 

condition. 

Assuming about 33 percent of wildfires would result in high-burn severity; about 8 percent of all 

soils in the approximate 595,000 treatment area could result in soil erosion above threshold levels 

resulting in loss of soil surface and soil productivity (table 32).

An increase in coarse woody debris (CWD) well above the forest standard of 5 to 7 tons per acre 

in ponderosa pine could contribute excessive ground fuel loads that would burn at high 

temperatures resulting in mineralization of surface soil horizon and organic matter where about 

50 percent of soil nutrients are stored, sterilization, loss of ground cover, and hydrophobic soil 

conditions. Subsequently, post-fire storm events could result in removal of surface soil at an 

accelerated rate, loss of soil productivity, and sediment delivery into connected stream courses.

Implementation of alternative A would not increase forest resiliency to natural disturbances and 

would not improve soil or watershed function as well as all other action alternatives would. 

Implementation of alternative A would put the majority of soils and watersheds at risk of 

continued uncharacteristic wildfire effects that could result in loss of soil productivity and 

sediment delivery to connected stream courses. It does not meet the purpose and need for the 

project, as it would not move the project area toward soils (soil function/productivity and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

understory species), watershed or vegetation (forest structure, forest health, composition, and 

diversity), and fire behavior desired conditions.

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Mechanical activities would not result in any soil loss above tolerable levels according to WEPP 

modeling. However, prescribed fire effects could result in potential soil erosion above tolerable 

levels on up to about 2 percent of mechanically, untreated slopes. Slopes greater than 40 percent 

are proposed for low-intensity prescribed fire only treatments (table 32).

Mechanical treatment and prescribed fire would increase understory response and reduce wildfire 

threat on about 388,500 acres. Using prescribed fire only on about 199,400 acres would decrease 

wildfire threat and improve soil condition and productivity. Overall, soil productivity would be 

improved and maintained on about 587,923 acres (table 33).

Alternative B would improve watershed conditions in 23 percent of the functioning at risk and 42 

percent of the impaired watersheds (table 34). In addition, alternative B would decommission 496 

miles of road in functioning at-risk watersheds, and decommission 226 miles of roads located in 

impaired function watersheds. Stream channel treatments would improve waterflow regime on 19 

miles of functioning at-risk watersheds and 9 miles in impaired watersheds.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects

Mechanical activities would not result in any soil loss above tolerable levels according to WEPP 

modeling. However, prescribed fire effects could result in potential soil erosion above tolerable 

levels on up to about 2 percent of mechanically, untreated slopes. Slopes greater than 40 percent 

are proposed for low-intensity fire only treatments (table 32).

Mechanical treatment and prescribed fire would increase understory response and reduce wildfire 

threat on about 434,000 acres. Using prescribed fire only on about 159,200 acres would decrease 

wildfire threat and improve soil condition and productivity. Soil productivity would be improved 

and maintained on about 593,211 acres (table 33).

Alternative C would slightly improve watershed conditions on 23 percent of the functioning at 

risk and 42 percent of the impaired watersheds (same as alternative B) due to fuels reduction and 

improved soil productivity from treatments (table 34). Roads and stream channel related effects 

are the same as described for alternative B.

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects

Mechanical activities would not result in any soil loss above tolerable levels according to WEPP 

modeling. However, prescribed fire effects could result in potential soil erosion above tolerable 

levels on up to about 2 percent of mechanically, untreated slopes. Slopes greater than 40 percent 

are proposed for low-intensity fire treatments with no mechanical thinning (table 32).

Mechanical treatment and the use of prescribed fire only would increase understory response and 

reduce wildfire threat on about 388,500 acres (table 33). However, about 25 percent of those 

treated acres would be subject to high-severity surface fire effects that can compromise long-term 

soil productivity. The prescribed fire only treatment on about 179,000 acres would decrease 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 111

wildfire threat and improve soil condition and productivity. Overall, soil productivity would be 

improved and maintained on about 470,148 acres. 

Alternative D would move toward improved watershed function in 8 percent of the functioning 

at-risk watershed and within 34 percent of impaired watersheds (table 34). Roads and stream 

channel related environmental consequences are the same as described for alternative B. 

Water Quality and Water Yield

Water quality units of measure are: (1) acres of soil disturbance that exceed tolerance thresholds, 

(2) acres subjected to high-severity burn, (3) acres of ephemeral stream courses restored, and (4) 

number of springs restored. The units of measure for water yield are: (1) increases in streamflow 

as measured at downstream gaging stations and (2) increases in snowpack retention as measured 

at SNOTEL sites and snow courses. For this analysis, short term equated to 1 to 2 years and long 

term is 5 years or more.

Alternative A

There would be no direct changes to surface water quality. Adverse effects to water quality, 

quantity, and riparian condition are possible from high-severity wildfire. There would be potential 

to increase flood flows of sediment and debris-laden storm water in stream courses within and 

downstream of burned areas. These conditions would adversely affect riparian areas along stream

courses through deposition of large amounts of sediment and debris with the potential to damage 

or overwhelm riparian systems.

Water yield originating from the ponderosa pine vegetation type would continue to decline as a 

result of forest ingrowth that increases stand density. Increased stand density would result in a 

corresponding increase in interception of precipitation and evapotranspiration by trees, both of 

which would reduce soil moisture. 

Alternative B

Minor, short-term changes (1 to 2 years) in water quality are possible in water bodies adjacent to 

or downstream from mechanical vegetation treatments, areas subjected to prescribed fire, areas of 

temporary road construction and decommissioning, and where stream channel restoration 

activities are conducted. Long term (5 or more years) surface water quality is expected to improve 

through more resilient forest conditions that minimize uncharacteristic fire behavior, and through 

improved vegetative ground cover that minimizes soil erosion and sediment transport to 

connected stream courses and other water bodies. Since soil disturbance at the 6th HUC level 

would average 3.3 percent and range from 0.1 to 11.2 percent (Steinke 2013), adverse effects to 

water quality would be minimal. Protective fencing around springs would improve surface water 

quality at the individual spring scale. BMPs and SWSCPs as outlined in appendix C of the DEIS 

would minimize or mitigate most adverse effects to water quality or riparian areas.

Water yield would be expected to increase only slightly in areas where vegetation treatments 

remove from 25 to 50 percent of the overall tree canopy cover within a given watershed 

(Troendle et al. 2001, Burton 1997, Swank 1989, Baker 1999, 2003, Ffolliott et al. 1989, Miller 

2007). Snow interception by tree canopies would be reduced, leading to increased snowpack in 

forest openings.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 32. Alternatives A–D soil disturbance and erosion by treatment area and aggregate of 6th code watershed by alternative

Indicator

Acres by Alternative Percent of Treatment Area by 

Alternative

Percent of 6th Code Watershed by 

Alternative

A B C D A B C D A B C D 

Soil disturbance from 

mechanical activities (%)

0 49,238 54,495 49,238 0 8.4 9.2 8.7 0 2.4 2.7 2.4

Soil disturbance from 

potential high-severity 

burns (%)

11,758 11,863 3,576 0 2.0 2.0 0.6 0 to 33 0.6 0.6 0.2

Total soil disturbance 

(high-severity burns and 

mechanical)

60,995 66,358 52,814 0 to 33 10.4 11.2 9.3 0 to 0.1–

31.2

3.0 3.3 2.6

Soil disturbance from 

mechanical activities and 

high-severity fire (range: 

low to high)

NA 0–18.2 2.2–19.4 0.1–14.1 NA 0–11.0 0.1–11.2 0.1–9.6

Potential soil erosion 

above tolerable soil loss 

values when 33% is

burned in high-severity 

fire (%) 

0 0 0 8 Up to 2 Up to 2 Up to 2 2 0 0 0 

Potential soil erosion 

above tolerable levels 

when 100% are severely 

burned

0 0 0 24 Up to 2 Up to 2 Up to 2 5 0 0 0 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 113

Table 33. Soil condition and productivity environmental consequences by alternative 

Improvement, Maintenance, and 

Protection of Soil Condition, Function, 

and Productivity

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres treated for improvement, maintenance, and 

protection of soil condition and productivity

0 587,923 593,211 470,165

Increased herbaceous understory productivity (acres) 0 388,500 434,000 388,500 acres with 97,125 acres subject 

to high-severity surface fire effects that 

pose risk to long-term soil productivity. 

Decreased fire threat, improved soil condition, and 

long-term productivity protected (acres)

0 587,923 593,211 470,165

Table 34. Comparison of effects to watershed function by alternative

Effects Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Hazardous fuel reduction 

acres resulting in 

improvement, protection, 

and maintenance of soil 

condition and productivity 

(acres)

0 587,923 593,211 470,148

Potential for high-severity 

burns (acres/percent within 

treatment area) 

200,000/34% 23,000 to 41,000/4 to 7% Same as alternative B. Short term: 23,000–41,000/4–7% 

potential for crown fire with surface 

fire intensity similar to alternative A 

on about 25% of mechanical 

treatment acres. 

Long term: 50% revert to FRCC 3. 

Ephemeral stream restoration 

(miles)

0 39 miles of improvement:

19 miles in functioning at-risk 

watersheds,

11 miles in functioning proper 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Effects Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

watersheds, and 

9 miles in impaired function 

watersheds. 

Road and route 

decommission (miles)

0 904 miles decommissioned: 

496 miles in functioning at-risk 

watersheds,

182 miles in functioning properly 

watersheds, and

226 miles in impaired function 

watersheds. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

Overall change 

(improvement and

maintenance) in watershed 

function

(Existing condition is 22% 

functioning properly, 46% 

functioning at risk, and 32% 

impaired.)

None—high 

percentages of 

functioning at risk and 

impaired watersheds 

continue. 

Improvement in 23% of functioning 

at-risk watersheds. (This would 

equal almost a quarter of the 46% 

that are currently functioning at 

risk). 

Improvement in 42% of impaired 

watersheds. (This would equal 

almost half of the 46% of impaired 

watersheds.)

496 miles of open road 

reduced/removed in functioning atrisk watersheds. 

28 miles of improved waterflow 

regimes: 19 miles would occur in 

watersheds that are functioning at 

risk and 9 miles that would occur in 

watersheds that are currently 

impaired.

Improvement in 23% of 

functioning at-risk watersheds. 

(This would equal almost a 

quarter of the 46% that are 

currently functioning at risk).

Improvement in 42% of 

impaired watersheds. (This 

would equal almost half of the 

46% of impaired watersheds.)

Roads and stream channels are 

the same as alternative B. 

Improvement in 18% of functioning 

at-risk watersheds. 

Improvement in 34% of impaired 

watersheds.

Roads and stream channels are the 

same as alternative B.

Alternative D would not improve 

overall watershed condition as 

extensively as alternatives B and C.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 115

Alternative C

Minor, short-term adverse effects to water quality are possible in water bodies within and 

adjacent to mechanical vegetation and grassland restoration treatment areas. Steinke (2013) 

estimates soil disturbance of 3.4 percent at the 6th HUC level and 10.9 percent across the 

treatment area. Overall effects to surface water quality would be similar to alternative B. BMPs

and soil and water design features would minimize or mitigate most adverse effects to water 

quality or riparian areas.

More acres would receive mechanical vegetation treatments than alternative B and more trees 

would be removed from within Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected activity areas (PACs) since 

trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. would be removed. Water yield would,therefore, be expected to be 

slightly higher than under alternative B since there would be more forest openings and less dense 

forest conditions. Snow interception by tree canopies would be reduced more under this 

alternative than under the proposed action, therefore, potentially increasing winter snowpack 

more than would occur under alternative B.

Alternative D

Soil disturbance that could adversely affect surface water quality is estimated to be 2.9 percent at 

the 6th HUC level (Steinke 2013). While alternative D would result in the lowest level of soil 

disturbance that could adversely affect surface water quality of all the action alternatives, 

alternative D would not meet the purpose and need of achieving resilient forest conditions that 

promote high surface water quality (through protection of forested ecosystems from 

uncharacteristic fire behavior). Additionally, restoration of natural fire regimes to fire-dependent 

landscapes and vegetation types would not occur under this alternative. BMPs and soil and water 

design features would minimize or mitigate most adverse effects to water quality or riparian 

areas. 

Mechanical vegetation treatments would result in similar effects as alternative B. Since there 

would be fewer acres prescribed burned, there would be reduced potential for runoff and sediment 

delivery to stream courses under alternative D.

Summary of Effects for Water Quality: Ephemeral and intermittent drainages in the project 

area typically respond to seasonal runoff events (spring snowmelt and short duration, highintensity summer monsoon storms). Surface runoff has the potential to entrain sediment and other 

pollutants, contributing to short term surface water quality degradation. Sediment delivery ratios 

normally decline with increasing watershed area, resulting in dilution of sediment delivered to 

streams from a given activity. It is unlikely that alternatives B, C, and D would contribute enough 

sediment or other pollutants to ephemeral or intermittent drainages within the project area to 

result in impairment of any downstream waterbodies.

Springs, Riparian, and Wetland Condition

The units of measure for springs are: (1) initiation of spring discharge from springs that currently 

do not flow and (2) increases in spring discharge from currently flowing springs following 

restoration treatments. The units of measure for riparian and wetland condition are: (1) changes to 

the extents of riparian areas and (2) changes to riparian vegetative communities. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative A

There would be no changes to spring condition. Reduced riparian area and wetland function 

would be possible. Ongoing reductions in water yield from the ponderosa pine vegetation type 

would decrease moisture reaching riparian areas since spring discharge rates would be further 

reduced and water would not reach stream courses or recharge shallow or perched aquifers.

Alternative B

Spring conditions would improve for up to74 springs. Vegetation treatments at the watershed 

scale combined with prescribed fire could restore or improve hydrologic function of springs that 

currently have reduced discharge due to evapotranspirational losses of soil water which could 

otherwise recharge groundwater in perched or shallow aquifers. Riparian and wetland function 

are expected to improve through increased groundwater recharge and improved surface flows. 

Decommissioning of roads that have altered flow patterns through increased drainage density 

(i.e., road ditches that intercept water and lead-out ditches that discharge concentrated ditch flow 

onto the forest floor) or redirected storm water runoff (i.e., roads and ditches that intersect stream 

courses and discharge storm water runoff directly to stream courses) would improve overall 

watershed hydrology, thus improving waterflow to riparian ecosystems. Spring restoration would 

improve riparian vegetation communities. Restoration of grassland ecosystems through removal 

of encroaching trees would improve hydrologic function in meadow ecosystems, potentially 

increasing riparian vegetation in these areas.

Alternative C

In alternative C, riparian and wetland function are expected to improve slightly more than under 

alternatives B and D since more acres would receive mechanical vegetation treatments than 

alternative B and more trees would be removed from within MSO PACs since trees up to 18-inch 

d.b.h. would be removed. More acres would be subjected to low severity prescribed fire, 

decreasing rainfall interception and evapotranspirational losses. Groundwater recharge and storm 

water runoff would be slightly higher than under alternatives B and D. Decommissioning of roads 

that have altered flow patterns or redirected storm water runoff would have the same effect as 

alternative B. Restoration of 74 springs would improve riparian vegetation communities in these 

areas. Since more acres of grassland would be restored under alternative C than alternative B, 

there is increased potential for improvement in riparian ecosystem function where wetland or 

riparian species occur in restored grasslands.

Alternative D

In alternative D, riparian and wetland function are expected to improve, but to a lesser degree 

than under alternatives B and C since fewer acres would be subjected to prescribed fire which 

would otherwise reduce vegetative cover and, therefore, rainfall interception and 

evapotranspirational losses. Decommissioning of roads that have altered flow patterns or 

redirected storm water runoff would have the same effect as alternative B. Restoration of 74

springs would improve riparian vegetation communities in these areas. Restoration of grassland 

ecosystems would have the same effect as alternative B.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 117

Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative B and D 

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 would result in removal of more trees in 18 MSO PACs since trees up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. could be removed in these areas. Removal of additional trees would improve vegetative 

ground cover over the long term by increasing light interception at the forest floor and providing 

conditions conducive to the establishment of a more vigorous understory of grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs. Increased vegetative ground cover would improve soil stability by reducing soil erosion 

rates. Reduced stand densities would also provide for improved protection of treated areas from 

the effects of high-severity fire, further improving overall soil stability and watershed conditions. 

Reduced evapotranspiration resulting from removal of trees up to 16-inch d.b.h. would likely 

improve soil moisture status. With implementation of measures outlined in appendix C of the 

DEIS, adverse effects to water quality and riparian function would be minimized. Overall, these 

effects would provide greater protection of water quality and riparian areas by reducing the 

potential for sediment delivery to stream courses and riparian habitats, improving soil moisture in 

upland areas, and improving snowpack retention in treated areas.

Without implementation of amendment 1, maintenance of soil productivity and, therefore, water 

quality and riparian conditions would not be to the level provided through implementation of the 

amendment. There would be 18 MSO PACs that would remain at risk of high-severity fire which 

could degrade soil stability and productivity increasing the risk of adverse effects to water quality 

and riparian function. Without implementation of this proposed amendment, soil productivity and 

watershed function, including downstream water quality, would remain at risk from high-severity

wildfire and pose risk to the sustainability of PACs, core areas, restricted habitat, and threshold 

habitat. Deferring monitoring (and incremental treatment of habitat) of MSO to the FWS 

biological opinion would not affect water quality or riparian areas on the Coconino NF since no 

activities would occur that have potential to adversely affect these resources. 

Amendment 2 would improve soils and watershed conditions on 29,017 acres within the 

Coconino NF since these treatment areas would be returned to open stand condition 

representative of historic or reference condition. The lower stand densities and increased 

interspaces would provide conditions conducive to the establishment of a more vigorous 

understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, thus providing greater soil protection than litter alone. 

The increased interspaces would likely improve snowpack retention and, therefore, soil moisture 

status. Lower stand densities would provide greater protection of soils and watershed resources in 

treated areas from the effects of high-severity wildfire. These conditions would improve water 

quality and riparian area conditions by reducing sediment delivery to stream courses and riparian 

areas.

Implementation of measures outlined in appendix C of the DEIS would minimize or mitigate any 

adverse effects to water quality and riparian function. Without implementation of amendment 2, 

approximately 29,017 acres on the Coconino NF would remain at an elevated risk of highseverity wildfire. If such a fire were to occur, surface water quality would likely be adversely 

affected through increased sediment deliver and turbidity. Sediment delivery to riparian areas 

could degrade riparian function.

Amendment 3 is intended to ensure that no adverse effects occur to significant, or potentially 

significant, inventoried heritage sites. By doing so, this amendment would improve soils and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

watershed resources and, therefore, water quality and riparian area conditions by minimizing 

disturbance of these sites. While inventoried heritage sites comprise a relatively small proportion 

of each watershed, reduced ground disturbance would prevent destabilization of soils resources 

and, therefore, sediment delivery to stream courses and riparian areas. Implementation of BMPs 

and SWCPs that are designed to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to soils and water quality 

would further prevent degradation of soil stability and productivity and, therefore, minimize 

adverse effects to riparian areas.

Without implementation of amendment 3, adverse effects to inventoried heritage sites and, 

therefore, soil stability could occur. If soils are destabilized, sediment delivery to connected 

stream courses and riparian habitats could occur. 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1 would have similar effects as the Coconino NF plan amendment 2 under this 

alternative although slightly fewer acres (27,637) on the Kaibab NF would be managed for open 

conditions that are representative of historic or reference conditions that are conducive to the 

establishment of a more vigorous understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that then protect soil 

surfaces and reduce sediment delivery to stream courses and riparian areas. Without 

implementation of Kaibab NF plan amendment 1, maintenance of soil productivity and, therefore, 

water quality and riparian conditions would not be to the level provided through implementation 

of the proposed amendment. Approximately 27,637 acres would remain at risk of adverse effects 

of high-severity fire which could degrade soils stability and productivity and adversely affect 

surface water quality and riparian habitats.

Amendment 2 would have no effect to water quality or riparian areas on the Kaibab NF since it 

strictly relates to monitoring, definitions, and the incremental treatment of habitat. Managing for 

less than 10 percent threshold habitat for MSO would have minimal effect on soils, watershed 

condition, water quality, and riparian areas as this represents a difference of only 2 percent from 

the current level of 8 percent. 

Alternative C

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 would have similar effects as amendment 1 under alternative B. However, under 

this alternative, soils and watershed resources would be further improved in 56 MSO PAC core 

areas as a result of reintroduction of low intensity prescribed fire to these PACs. Reduced stand 

densities followed by improved vegetative ground cover would increase fine root biomass of 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs that protect soils from erosion. Reintroduction of low-intensity fire 

would improve nutrient cycling and increase understory vegetative vigor. These conditions would 

improve water quality and riparian area conditions by reducing sediment delivery to stream

courses and riparian areas. 

Overall, amendment 1 under alternative C would provide greater improvement in water quality 

and riparian health that under alternative B. Without implementation of this proposed forest plan 

amendment, reintroduction of low severity prescribed fire would not occur in 56 MSO PACs, 

leaving soils and watershed resources at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire that could damage soil 

stability and productivity and, therefore, adversely affect surface water quality and riparian area 

conditions. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 119

Mechanical vegetation treatments within the 6,321 acres of MSO restricted habitat 

(target/threshold) to achieve a residual basal area ranging from 110 to 150 square feet would 

improve soils and watershed conditions and, therefore, water quality by reducing stand densities 

that are otherwise conducive to high-severity fire. Vegetative ground cover would improve in 

these areas, reducing soil erosion potential and protecting surface water quality. 

Deferring monitoring (and incremental treatments of habitat) of MSO to the FWS biological 

opinion would not affect water quality or riparian areas on the Coconino NF since no activities 

would occur that have potential to adversely affect these resources. 

Amendment 2: The effects under alterative C would be the same as those described under 

alternative B.

Amendment 3: The effects under alternative C would be the same as those described under 

alternative B.

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1 under alternative C is similar to amendment 1 under alternative B, although 38 

more acres would be managed for open conditions that are representative of historic or reference 

conditions. The historic, reference conditions are conducive to the establishment of a more 

vigorous understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that would protect soil surfaces from erosion 

and reduce sediment delivery to stream courses and riparian areas. Approximately 38 additional 

acres would be improved under alternative C than alternative B. Without implementation of this 

proposed amendment, 27,675 acres on the Kaibab NF would remain at an elevated risk of highseverity wildfire that could adversely affect water quality and riparian habitats through increased 

sediment delivery to stream courses and increased water turbidity.

Amendment 2 would improve soils and watershed conditions in the proposed Garland Prairie 

Research Natural Area (RNA) by returning the RNA to a grassland condition. Removal of 

encroached trees would improve vegetative ground cover in this treatment area, reducing the 

potential for soil erosion and sediment delivery to stream courses. There would be minimal effect 

to riparian areas from implementation of this amendment as there are no riparian areas in close 

proximity to the RNA. Reintroduction of low intensity prescribed fire would improve nutrient 

cycling and herbaceous understory vigor, further contributing to improved vegetative ground 

cover. Without implementation of this amendment, encroached trees in the proposed Garland 

Prairie RNA would continue to pose a risk of high-severity fire and, therefore, risk to water 

quality in connected ephemeral drainages.

Amendment 3 would allow mechanical vegetation treatments within the 2,090 acres of MSO 

restricted habitat (target/threshold) to achieve a residual basal area ranging from 110 to 150 

square feet. This amendment would improve soils and watershed conditions and, therefore, water 

quality by reducing stand densities that are otherwise conducive to high-severity fire. Vegetative 

ground cover would improve in these areas, reducing soil erosion potential and protecting surface 

water quality. Managing for less than 10 percent threshold habitat for MSO would have minimal 

effect on soils, watershed condition, water quality, and riparian areas as this represents a 

difference of only 2 percent from the current level of 8 percent. 

The amendment adds definitions and defers MSO monitoring and the incremental treatment of 

habitat to the FWS biological opinion. Amendment 3 under alternative C would not affect water 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

quality or riparian areas on the Kaibab NF since no activities would occur that have potential to 

adversely affect water quality or riparian habitats.

Cumulative Effects 

The spatial boundary for the soils and watershed cumulative effects analysis is the 82 6th HUC 

watersheds that total about 2,032,000 acres (see appendix C of the soils report). The temporal 

timeframe for past actions is 2 to 3 years based on vegetative and CWD recovery of the site. 

Vegetative recovery after fuel treatments is generally very rapid, with erosion rates typically 

dropping to pre-fire levels within 1 to 2 years (Elliot 1999, USDA 2000). 

Relative to soils and watershed, there are about 45,000 acres of baseline ground disturbance from 

roads, private land, grazing allotments, and powerline corridors that occur across the cumulative 

effects analysis area. The total acres of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable treatment acres 

within the cumulative effects project area are roughly 282,400 acres (133,000 past and present 

projects and 150,000 acres of reasonably foreseeable projects) or about 14 percent of the 

cumulative boundary area. Of these treatment acres, about 15 percent would have ground 

disturbance (42,400 acres), which is just under 2 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area. 

The 4FRI project could add an additional 61,000 acres of ground disturbance. The total acreage 

of disturbed ground would be nearly 148,396 acres, or about 7 percent of the cumulative effects 

boundary area (see table 35).

Alternative A

Because no actions are proposed, no direct cumulative effects would result. The spatial and 

temporal boundaries are the same for all alternatives.

Alternatives B, C, and D

In alternative B, when past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered, including 

the actions in this alternative, the extent (about 5 percent) and magnitude of soil disturbance 

would not be exceeded within the cumulative effects boundary (table 35).

In alternatives C and D, the baseline ground disturbance and past, present, and foreseeable 

activities are the same as described in the introduction of the specialist report. Alternative C 

would add an additional 66,358 acres of ground disturbance for a total acreage of ground 

disturbance across the cumulative effects analysis area of nearly 153,759 acres, or about 8 percent 

of the cumulative effects boundary area (see table 35). Alternative D would add an additional 

52,800 acres of ground disturbance for a total acreage of ground disturbance across the 

cumulative effects analysis area of nearly 140,200 acres, or about 7 percent of the cumulative 

effects boundary area (see table 35).

In alternatives B, C, and D, further protection of soil and water resources would be provided by 

the use of BMPs that minimize the potential for soil disturbance. Identified and implemented 

BMPs are expected to reduce the risk on accelerated erosion, sediment delivery, and nonpoint 

source pollution to connected stream courses and maintain water quality in all watersheds. In 

addition to the use of BMPs, the completion and implementation of the travel management EIS 

would further reduce the number of acres disturbed by closing and decommissioning roads within 

the cumulative effects boundary. Because of these facts, alternatives B, C, and D would not 

provide a detrimental cumulative effect to soil resources within the cumulative effects boundary.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 121

In alternatives B, C, and D there are four 6th code watersheds where urban development has a 

large impact on ground disturbance areas. This project, plus current and reasonably foreseeable 

projects, would impacts these watersheds in the following manner:

• In the Cataract Creek headwaters watershed, there is an 11 percent baseline ground 

disturbance that increases to 14 percent total cumulative ground disturbance with the 

4FRI proposed activities. 

• In the Sinclair Wash watershed, there is a 25 percent baseline ground disturbance that 

increases to 26 percent total cumulative ground disturbance with the 4FRI proposed 

activities.

• In the Lower Rio de Flag watershed, there is an 18 percent baseline ground disturbance 

that increases to 20 percent total cumulative ground disturbance with the 4FRI proposed 

activities.

• In the Middle Oak Creek watershed, there is an 11 percent baseline ground disturbance 

that increases to 13 percent total cumulative ground disturbance with 4FRI proposed 

activities.

Implementation of BMPs would minimize any impacts to watersheds and would be especially 

important in the watersheds that already have a high urban impact. 

Table 35. Total cumulative effects analysis area 6th code (acres) by alternative

Effect Indicators Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Total Cumulative Effects Analysis Area 6th Code Acres 2,032,080 2,032,080 2,032,080

Proposed Ground Disturbance Acres 60,995 66,358 52,814

Percent of 6th Code Acres Disturbed 3.0 3.3 2.6

Baseline Conditions

Baseline Ground Disturbance Acres 45,041 45,041 45,041

Total Treatment Acres 149,561 149,561 149,561

Future

Total Ground Disturbance Acres 22,434 22,434 22,434

Current/Ongoing

Total Treatment Acres 132,837 132,837 132,837

Total Ground Disturbance Acres 19,926 19,926 19,926

Project Totals

Total Cumulative Effects Ground Disturbance (Acres) 148,396 153,759 140,214

Total Cumulative Effects Ground Disturbance (Percent) 7.3 7.6 6.9

Vegetation

The vegetation analysis is summarized from the silviculture specialist report. The report is 

incorporated by reference (McCusker 2013). The analysis is focused on determining whether, or 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

to what degree, the project meets purpose and need objectives. It responds to two key issues: 

Issue 2, conservation of large trees and Issue 3, post-treatment canopy cover and landscape 

openness. 

To address Issue 2, the analysis provides a quantitative pre-treatment and post-treatment threelevel analysis for MSO, goshawk, old growth, and vegetation structural stage (VSS) for goshawk 

habitat at the landscape scale (ponderosa pine vegetation type) to gauge movement toward

restoration desired conditions. To address Issue 3, the analysis discloses tree group stocking 

guides that will be used to meet tree group canopy cover requirements and evaluates the 

following within goshawk habitat: pre- and post-treatment distribution of habitat structure, overall 

habitat structure (VSS class), forest density metrics, and openness. See the silviculture report for 

the complete methodology, assumptions, and limitations discussion. 

Affected Environment

Cover Types and Vegetation Communities

The cover types have been grouped into communities. Table 36 lists the acres within the project 

area by cover type. The “Forest Structure” and “Forest Health” sections in chapter 1 include 

existing and desired conditions for ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper woodlands (old growth). 

Existing and desired conditions for grasslands, Gambel oak , and aspen can be found in the 

“Vegetation Composition and Diversity” section. See the specialist report for details on each 

vegetation community.

Table 36. Acres of vegetation cover types by restoration unit (RU) in the project area

Cover Type RU 1 RU 3 RU 4 RU 5 RU 6 Total

Nonvegetated

Barren 120 134 129 1,301 48 1,732

Nonforest Communities

Grassland 8,230 12,799 22,665 4,987 93 48,774

Forest Communities

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 1,427 5,884 7,283 8,845 2,219 25,658

Oak Woodland 287 1,633 926 523 30 3,399

Ponderosa Pine 145,793 129,225 134,301 61,671 41,188 512,178

Aspen 368 201 499 403 0 1,471

Total Forested Acres: 147,875 136,943 143,009 71,441 43,437 542,705

Total Analysis Area Acres: 156,225 149,876 165,803 77,730 43,578 593,211

All ponderosa pine forested habitat within the analysis area was stratified to meet analysis 

requirements in the forest plans (USDA 1987, 1988) for MSO and northern goshawk as displayed 

in figure 35, table 37, and table 38. See the “Wildlife” section for the MSO and goshawk analysis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 123

Figure 35. Stratification of ponderosa pine forested lands, other cover 

types, and nonforested land

Table 37. MSO habitat stratification within the analysis area (acres by RU)

MSO Habitat RU 1 RU 3 RU 4 RU 5 RU 6 Total

Protected Habitat

Protected Activity Center (PAC) 29,349 4,268 556 1,393 0 35,566

Pine Oak >40% Slope 648 239 3 0 0 889

Total MSO Protected 29,996 4,507 558 1,393 0 36,455

Restricted Habitat – Pine Oak

Threshold 873 1,032 0 0 0 1,905

Target 3,941 2,867 0 0 0 6,808

Restricted Other 26,421 38,748 1,575 634 0 67,378

Total MSO Restricted 31,234 42,648 1,575 634 0 76,091

Total MSO Habitat 61,231 47,155 2,134 2,026 0 112,546
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 38. Northern goshawk habitat stratification within the analysis area (acres by RU)

Northern Goshawk Habitat RU 1 RU 3 RU 4 RU 5 RU 6 Total

Nest Habitat 1,126 1,174 3,489 435 616 6,839

Post-fledgling Family Area (PFA)

Uneven-aged 650 2,405 5,086 1,362 2,852 12,354

Even-aged 2,895 1,873 4,910 1,148 582 11,408

Total PFA 3,545 4,278 9,996 2,509 3,434 23,761

Total PFA and Nest 4,670 5,452 13,484 2,944 4,050 30,600

Landscapes Outside Post-fledgling Family Areas (LOPFA)

Uneven-aged 40,073 40,964 60,374 46,808 19,743 207,962

Even-aged 39,820 35,655 58,309 9,892 17,396 161,071

Total LOPFA 79,892 76,619 118,683 56,700 37,183 369,033

Total Goshawk Habitat 84,562 82,071 132,167 59,644 41,188 399,633

Forest Health

For the purposes of this analysis, forest health is defined by the vigor and condition of the forest 

stands, and the presence of insects and disease that affect the sustainability of the forest. Pages 17 

to 18 in chapter 1 of the DEIS describe existing and desired conditions for stand density and 

insect and disease, key components of forest health.

Vegetation Diversity and Composition

Page 19 to page 21 in chapter 1 of the DEIS describe existing and desired conditions for 

vegetation composition and diversity. 

Environmental Consequences

The spatial context for environmental consequences is the 593,211-acre analysis area (also 

referred to as the project area). The baseline year for existing condition is 2010. The baseline 

description includes all past activities and events that have influenced the existing condition. In 

the effects discussion, post treatment refers to the time the final activity is accomplished (year 

2020), “short-term” effects refers to effects over the 10-year period from the time the final 

activity was accomplished (year 2030). Beyond 20 years, effects are considered “long term” (year 

2050). The environmental consequences are based on the application of the design features and 

mitigation measures (see sections A through E of appendix D for the vegetation treatment design 

and associated implementation guides). 

All Alternatives

Canopy Density and Openness

In alternative A and in the absence of restoration treatments, existing openness is expected to 

continue on the same trajectory with at least 75 percent of the ponderosa pine classified as 

moderately closed to closed by 2020 (table 39). As the forest develops over time and existing 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 125

openings gradually fill in, some of the areas would move from an open to moderately closed 

condition and some of the areas would move from a moderately closed to closed condition. No 

treatments would be implemented to create a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups. Existing 

interspace would continue to be encroached upon by expanding tree crowns and ingrowth. Any 

large scale tree mortality occurring has the potential to enhance interspace and create tree groups.

In alternatives B and D there would be a fairly diverse condition with openness leaning to the 

closed side of the range. Eleven percent of the ponderosa pine would be very open, 31 percent 

open, 42 percent moderately closed, and 15 percent closed (table 39). The unknowns are those 

areas with no treatment proposed under this alternative.

In alternative C, there would be a fairly diverse condition with openness leaning to the closed 

side of the range. Eleven percent of the ponderosa pine would be very open, 30 percent open, 42 

percent moderately closed, and 17 percent closed. 

In addition to this analysis, wildlife conducted an evaluation of post-treatment canopy openness 

for canopy density dependent species. The analysis is summarized in the “Wildlife” section. The 

complete analysis is in appendix G of the DEIS.

Table 39. Alternatives A–D comparison of canopy density and openness

Alternative Very Open (%) Open (%) Moderately Closed (%) Closed (%)

Alternative A 45% moderately closed and 3% closed trends toward being 75% closed by 2020

Alternative B 11 31 42 15

Alternative C 11 30 42 17

Alternative D 11 31 42 15

Mosaic of Interspaces and Tree Groups of Varying Sizes and Shapes

While all treatments with the exception of grassland restoration are designed to reestablish forest 

openings and attain a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of varying sizes and shapes, the 

intensity of the treatment affects the relative tendency toward this condition. 

In alternatives B and C, 41 percent of the area treated would be considered high, 25 percent 

would be moderate, 24 percent would be low, and 10 percent would be very low. In alternative D, 

43 percent of the area treated would be considered high, 26 percent would be moderate, 25 

percent would be low, and 6 percent would be very low.

The lower intensity treatments within MSO PACs, target/threshold, and goshawk nest habitat 

would result in irregular tree spacing and subtle expansion of existing forest openings. The higher 

intensity treatments such as uneven-aged (UEA) 40, intermediate thin (IT) 40, and stand 

improvement (SI) 40 would be removing more trees and extends greater flexibility in size and 

shape of interspaces and tree groups generated.

Table 40 displays by alternative acres by treatment intensity as an indication of the relative ability 

of the treatment to attain a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups and of the post-treatment 

interspace/tree group condition. Total treatment acres and percent are provided by treatment 

intensity category (high, moderate, low, and very low). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 40. Comparison of alternatives relative to attaining interspaces and tree groups (acres)

Treatment 

Intensity Treatment Type Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

High Grassland Restoration 11,185 11,230 11,222

Savanna 45,469 45,462 45,469

Pine-Sage 5,261 5,261 5,261

WUI 55 2,268 2,268 2,268

UEA 40 101,044 95,712 101,044

IT 40 39,189 39,039 39,189

SI 40 12,309 12,244 12,309

High (Total Acres and Percent) 216,725 (43%) 211,215 (41%) 216,762 (44%)

Moderate MSO Restricted 65,024 63,191 65,024

UEA 25 39,244 39,176 39,244

IT 25 11,871 11,858 11,871

SI 25 6,824 6,824 6,824

Moderate (Total Acres and Percent) 122,963 (24%) 121,050 (24%) 122,963 (25%)

Low UEA AZGFD Design NA 4,837 NA

UEA 10 18,204 18,109 18,204

IT 10 7,766 7,766 7,766

SI 10 1,914 1,914 1,914

Goshawk PFA and LOPFA 

Prescribed Fire Only 

90,126 91,057 90,089

MSO Restricted Prescribed Fire Only 2,354 2,354 2,354

Low (Total Acres and Percent) 120,363 (24%) 126,074 (25%) 120,327 (25%)

Very Low Goshawk Prescribed Fire Only 6,839 6,839 6,839

MSO PAC 10,741 10,741 10,741

MSO Protected Prescribed Fire Only 20,864 25,714 889

MSO Target and Threshold 8,412 8,412 8,412

MSO Target and Threshold 

Prescribed Fire Only

301 301 301

Very Low (Total Acres and Percent) 47,157 (9%) 52,007 (10%) 27,182 (6%)

Forest Structure in Goshawk Habitat

Goshawk habitat forest structure and habitat components were projected out to the years 2020 and 

2050 by habitat and restoration unit (RU) scale. Table 41 summarizes the differences in habitat 

components by alternative. The silviculture report includes additional scales of analysis including 

restoration subunit.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 127

In alternative A, density in terms of stand density index (SDI) and basal area would continue to 

increase and remain higher than desired in all habitats. All habitats would show an increase in 

total CWD, CWD >12 inches, and snags >18 inches between 2020 and 2050 resulting in 

conditions at or close to desired. 

In alternatives B and C in year 2020, all habitats would be within the desired density range with 

the exception of RU 6 PFA. The pre-treatment RU 6 PFAs would have low stocking (below the 

desired condition of 70 square feet), typical of RU 6 site conditions with patches of dense VSS 3. 

The treatments would focus on thinning the dense patches and maintaining canopy cover in the 

mid-aged, mature, and old (VSS 4, 5, and 6), further reducing overall density. Tons of CWD and 

snags per acre would be below desired. By year 2050 at the habitat and RU scale, all habitats

would remain within the desired SDI range. Basal area would be at or above the desired of 70 

square feet. Tons of CWD would exceed the minimum desired with the exception of RU 6 PFA 

and LOPFA. Snags would remain below desired levels.

In alternative D (2020) at the habitat and RU scale, all habitats would be within the desired 

density range with the exception of RU 6 PFA (due to these stands being dominated by young 

forest structural stage). With the exception of RU6 and LOPFA RU 5, tons of CWD would be at 

or above desired due to the lack of prescribed fire reducing this attribute. Snags per acre would be 

below desired at all scales. By year 2050, all habitats would remain within the desired SDI range. 

Basal area would be at or above the desired 70 square feet. Total tons of CWD would exceed the 

minimum desired with the exception of RU 6 PFA and LOPFA. Snags would have increased yet 

remain below desired levels.

Table 41. Goshawk forest structure and habitat components in 2020 and 2050 in all RUs

Alternative

SDI % of 

Maximum

Trees Per 

Acre Basal Area Tons CWD Total

Tons CWD 

>12”

Snags 

>18"

202020502020205020202050202020502020205020202050

Nest/PFA Habitat

A 47 50 192 152 115 132 4.6 7.1 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.9

B 27 33 88 78 72 94 3.0 6.0 0.8 1.8 1.1 0.9

C 27 33 88 78 72 94 3.0 6.0 0.8 1.8 1.1 0.9

D 30 36 109 95 77 99 5.2 7.2 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.9

Landscapes Outside of PFAs

A 43 46 182 142 105 122 4.2 6.6 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.8

B 21 27 67 60 57 76 2.7 5.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.9

C 21 27 67 60 57 76 2.7 5.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.9

Alt D 24 29 109 74 77 81 5.2 6.4 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.8

Table 42 characterizes the average overall habitat components in relation to desired (below, 

above, within) for each alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 42. Forest structure desired conditions in goshawk habitat across alternatives

Indicator

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

SDI Exceeds Exceeds RU 6 

exceeds

Meets RU 6 

exceeds

Meets RU 6 

exceeds

Meets

Basal 

Area

Exceeds Exceeds RU 6 

exceeds

Exceeds – 

Only RU 

6 meets

RU 6 

exceeds

Exceeds– 

only RU 6 

meets

RU 6 

exceeds

Exceeds

CWD 

(tons/ 

acre)

Moving 

toward

Meets Below Only RU 

6 PFA and 

LOPFA

meets

Below Only RU 

6 PFA and 

LOPFA

meets

Below Exceeds

Snags Per 

Acre

Moving 

toward

Meets Below Below Below Below Moving 

toward

Exceeds

Canopy Cover

Canopy cover is time consuming to measure and difficult to standardize to obtain consistent 

results with different observers. Even the definition of the term is dependent on the method of 

measurement. To resolve this issue, the Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) crown width model 

was used as the basis for developing stocking densities that would achieve desired canopy cover 

levels. This was accomplished by establishing ponderosa pine seedling tree groups (site index 75) 

within FVS, and periodically thinning the groups to determine the stocking that would achieve 

the desired canopy cover when the trees reached 15-inch d.b.h. (midpoint of the VSS 4 size 

class). This stocking is considered typical for meeting the canopy cover desired conditions and 

stocking ranges by tree size class are centered on this value.

These stocking levels were compared to a local study specific to northern Arizona ponderosa pine 

forest (as reported by Shepperd et al. 2001) that predicted canopy cover at the stand level by 

inferring the relationship between estimated stand basal area and canopy cover. This comparison 

indicated the algorithmic relationship between basal area and canopy cover overestimated canopy 

cover in the larger size classes compared to FVS. Based on this comparison, we chose to use the 

stocking indicated by FVS to meet canopy cover requirements.

The FVS developed stocking guides were then validated thru site visits to areas with variable 

densities and tree sizes. Comparing the stocking guides to the tree density within VSS 4, 5, and 6 

sites that had interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns indicated following the stocking 

guides would meet the desired tree group canopy cover within goshawk habitat. 

Alternatives B, C, and D

Table 43 and figure 36 are the stocking guides that would be used in all action alternatives to 

meet canopy cover requirements in tree groups within goshawk LOPFA habitat. Table 44 and 

figure 37 are the stocking guides that would be used to meet canopy cover requirements in tree 

groups within goshawk PFA habitat. See sections A and B of appendix D for more detail on 

incorporating the stocking guides in treatment design. With the proposed canopy cover forest plan 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 129

amendment for canopy cover (see appendix B of the DEIS) on both forests, the alternatives would 

be consistent with the forest plans.

The forest plan amendment specific to acres managed for an open reference condition would 

remove meeting the canopy cover requirement on a maximum of 29,017 acres of goshawk 

LOPFA habitat on the Coconino NF and 27,675 acres on LOPFA habitat Kaibab NF (alternative 

C).

Table 43. Stocking guides to meet tree group canopy cover requirements within goshawk 

habitat areas outside of PFAs (LOPFA)

Typical Number of Trees Per Group 

Stocking for Different Group Sizes1 

Typical Intra-group 

(within-group) Densities1 

(All Group Acreage 

Sizes)

VSS D.B.H.

Range

1/10 

Acre 

Group

1/4 

Acre 

Group

1/2 

Acre 

Group

3/4 

Acre 

Group

1 Acre 

Group

Relative 

Spacing 

Range (feet) 

Basal Area2 

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0 – 4.9” 19 48 96 144 193 12 – 18 NA

3 5 – 11.9” 14 34 68 102 136 NA 50

4* 12 – 17.9” 5 12 23 35 46 NA 60

5* 18 – 23.9” 3 8 15 23 30 NA 70

6* 24”+ 2 5 11 16 21 NA 85

1 These are typical values for the desired condition. Variation can occur and is desired, however, ranges should center 

on these values. See chart below.

2 Rounded to nearest 10 square feet per acre.

* Densities are equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover.

Figure 36. Typical stocking of a 1-acre group to meet LOPFA canopy cover 

desired condition
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 44. Stocking guides to meet tree group canopy cover requirements within goshawk 

PFAs

Typical Number of Trees Per Group 

Stocking for Different Group Sizes1

Typical Intra-group 

(within-group) 

Densities1

(All Group Acreage 

Sizes)

VSS D.B.H.

Range

1/10 

Acre 

Group

1/4 

Acre 

Group

1/2 

Acre 

Group

3/4 

Acre 

Group

1 Acre 

Group

Relative 

Spacing 

Range 

(feet)

Basal Area2

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0 – 4.9” 19 48 97 145 193 12 – 18 NA

3 5 – 11.9” 14 34 68 102 136 NA 50

4* 12 – 17.9” 7 18 35 53 70 NA 85

5** 18 – 23.9” 4 10 20 29 39 NA 90

6** 24”+ 3 7 14 20 27 NA 110

1 These are typical values for the desired condition. Variation can occur and is desired, however, ranges should center 

on these values. See chart below.

2 Rounded to nearest 10 square feet per acre.

* Densities are equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover

** Densities are equivalent to 50 percent canopy cover

Figure 37. Typical stocking of a 1-acre group to meet PFA canopy cover 

desired condition

Forest Structure in Even-aged and 

Uneven-Aged Stands 2020 and 2050

Table 45 and table 46 summarize the differences in VSS distribution by alternative. The 

silviculture report includes additional scales of analysis including restoration subunit.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+

Trees Per Acre

Diameter

Typical Stocking Of A 1 Acre Group To 

Meet PFA Canopy Cover Desired Condition 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 131

Alternative A

The goshawk habitat structural stage analysis indicates that in 2020, overall VSS distribution in 

all goshawk habitats would continue to be dominated by the young and mid-aged (VSS 3 and 4) 

structural stages. By 2050, this trend would shift toward the mid-aged and mature structural 

stages with an overall underrepresentation throughout all habitats in VSS 1, 2, 3, and VSS 6 in the 

even-aged stands. 

Alternatives B and C

The goshawk habitat structural stage analysis for alternatives B and C indicates overall posttreatment VSS distribution in the even-aged goshawk habitats would have good representation of 

the VSS 1, 3, 4, and 5 age classes in the LOPFA; an underrepresentation of the VSS 5 age class in 

the PFA; an underrepresentation of the VSS 6 age class in all habitats; and no representation of 

the VSS 2 age class. The uneven-aged goshawk habitats would have good representation of VSS 

1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the LOPFA; VSS 6 would be underrepresented in the PFA; and there would be 

no representation of the VSS 2 age class. This would represent a more balanced overall VSS 

distribution compared to alternative A with improvement toward the desired representation in the 

grass/forb/shrub, young, mid-aged, and mature forest stages.

As forest development progresses, projections show the distribution would shift toward the later 

stages by 2050 with no VSS 1 represented, an underrepresentation of VSS 3, and good overall 

representation in VSS 2, 4, 5, and 6. 

Alternative D

The goshawk habitat structural stage analysis for alternative D indicates overall post-treatment 

VSS distribution to be similar to alternatives B and C, with slightly higher overall representation 

in VSS 3, and slightly lower overall representation in VSS 5. By 2050, projections indicate slight 

overall differences in representation in VSS 3, 4, 5, and 6 compared to alternatives B and C.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 45. Alternative A–D in 2020 and 2050 VSS distribution for goshawk LOPFA even-aged and uneven-aged stands (percent of area) 

Alternative

VSS 1

(Desired 10%)

VSS 2 

(Desired 10%)

VSS 3 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 4 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 5 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 6 

(Desired 20%)

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

Even-aged LOPFA

A 7 0 <1 7 35 8 49 47 7 32 2 5 

B 13 0 0 13 20 3 39 29 24 34 3 21

C Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 40 (+1) Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 

D Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 32 (+12) 7 (+4) 33 (-6) Alt. B 19 (-5) 36 (+2) Alt. B 16 (-5)

Uneven-aged LOPFA

A 0 0 1 0 36 8 34 42 14 25 16 25

B 7 0 <1 6 19 2 20 19 35 20 19 53

C Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 

D Alt. B Alt. B 1 (+<1) Alt. B 26 (+7) 8 (+6) Alt. B Alt. B 29 (-6) 21 (+1) 17 (-2) 45 (-8)

Note: Cells with “Alt. B” indicate the value is the same as provided in alternative B and numbers in parentheses with a “+” or “-” symbol display the difference from 

alternative B.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 133

Table 46. Alternatives A–D 2020 and 2050 VSS distribution for goshawk PFA even-aged and uneven-aged stands (percent of area) 

Alternative

VSS 1 

(Desired 10%)

VSS 2 

(Desired 10%)

VSS 3 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 4 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 5 

(Desired 20%)

VSS 6 

(Desired 20%)

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

Even-aged PFA

A 3 0 1 3 36 7 52 58 7 26 1 6 

B 9 0 0 9 24 2 45 42 14 38 8 9 

C Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 25 (+1) Alt. B 46 (+1) Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 6 (-2) Alt. B 

D Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 34 (+10) 5 (+3) 44 (-1) 40 (-2) 11 (-3) 37 (-1) 2 (-6) Alt. B 

Uneven-aged PFA

A 0 0 <1 0 35 5 44 51 15 23 5 21

B 8 0 0 8 17 0 40 28 25 39 10 25

C Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 

D Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B Alt. B 25 (+8) 3 (+3) 37 (-3) 26 (-2) 24 (-1) 40 (+1) 6 (-4) 23 (-2)

Note: Cells with Alt. B indicate the value is the same as provided in alternative B

Note: Numbers in parentheses with a “+” or “-” symbol display the difference from alternative B
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Forest Structure Mexican Spotted Owl Habit (MSO)

MSO habitat forest structure and habitat components projected out to the years 2020 and 2050 in 

each alternative and by habitat type are displayed in table 47. 

Alternative A

Density in terms of basal area and SDI would continue to increase and would remain higher than 

desired in all habitats in 2020. By 2050, the distribution of size classes would exceed desired in 

the 12- to 18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes, and would remain below desired in the 24-

inch plus size class. Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would be above 20 in all habitats 

except restricted other in RU 5 (see table 31 in the silviculture report). Average Gambel oak basal 

area would be static between 2020 and 2050 and remain below desired in the restricted other 

habitat. All habitats show an increase in CWD greater than12 inches and snags greater than18

inches between 2020 and 2050. 

Alternative B

In 2020: 

• Basal area density would be within the desired range in all habitats.

• SDI would be in the extremely high density zone within the target/threshold, protected 

habitats (with the exception of RU 4), and on the high end of the desired range within 

restricted other habitat. This would be largely due to the limited mechanical treatment in 

the protected habitat and the high oak stocking in the restricted habitat.

• The distribution of size classes would be at or exceed the desired minimum in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the desired minimum in the 

restricted other habitat and would be below desired minimum in the target/threshold 

habitat. 

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would be very close to desired minimum in 

the target/threshold habitat and well below desired minimum in restricted other.

• The overall average Gambel oak basal area would be above the desired minimum in all 

habitats but would be limited in RU 5 and RU 1 restricted other.

• All habitats would approach the desired minimum CWD greater than12 inches and would 

be below the desired minimum in snags greater than18 inches. 

In 2050: 

• Basal area would be above the desired minimum for target/threshold habitat and above 

the desired range for restricted other.

• The SDI would remain in the extremely high zone within the target/threshold and 

protected habitats and would be higher than the desired range in restricted other.

• The distribution of size classes would be at, or exceed, the desired minimum in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the desired minimum in the 

restricted other habitat and would remain below desired minimum in the target/threshold 

habitat. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 135

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would exceed the desired minimum in the 

target/threshold habitat and would remain below the desired minimum in restricted other.

• Overall, the average Gambel oak basal area would be above the desired minimum in all 

habitats but would remain limited in RU 5 and RU 1 restricted other. 

• All habitats would show an increase in CWD greater than12 inches between 2020 and 

2050. Snags greater than18 inches would show an increase in target/threshold and 

protected habitat while remaining static in restricted other. 

Alternative C

In 2020: 

• Basal area density would be within the desired range in all habitats.

• SDI would be higher than desired within the target/threshold, protected habitat (with the 

exception of RU 4), and on the high end of the desired range within restricted other 

habitat. This would be largely due to the limited mechanical treatment in the protected 

habitat and the high oak stocking in the restricted habitat.

• The distribution of size classes would be at or exceed the minimum desired in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the minimum desired in the 

restricted other habitat and would be below the minimum desired in the target/threshold 

habitat. 

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would be within 2 trees per acre of minimum 

desired in the target/threshold habitat and would be well below minimum desired in 

restricted other.

• Overall average Gambel oak basal area would be above minimum desired in all habitats 

except RU 5 restricted other where it would be a limited component within that 

landscape. 

• All habitats would be approaching minimum desired CWD greater than12 inches and 

would be below minimum desired in snags greater than18 inches. 

In 2050: 

• Basal area would be above the desired range for target/threshold habitat. The average 

overall basal area in restricted other would be 112 square feet which is the low end of the 

desired range for MSO nesting/roosting habitat (threshold). 

• SDI density would exceed the desired range in all habitats.

• The distribution of size classes would be at, or exceed, the minimum desired in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the minimum desired in the 

restricted other habitat and would remain below the minimum desired in target/threshold 

habitat. 

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would exceed the minimum desired in the 

target/threshold habitat and would remain below the minimum desired in restricted other. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Overall average Gambel oak basal area would be above the minimum desired in all 

habitats except in RU 5 restricted other.

• All habitats would show an increase in CWD great than 12 inches between 2020 and 

2050. Snags greater than18 inches would show an increase in target/threshold and 

protected habitat while remaining static in restricted other.

Alternative D

In 2020: 

• Basal area density would be approaching the high end of the desired range within the 

restricted other habitat and would be within desired for the other habitats. 

• SDI would be higher than desired in all habitats with the exception of restricted other RU 

5 and protected RU 4. This would be largely due to the limited mechanical and fire 

treatments in the protected habitat and the high oak stocking and lack of post mechanical 

treatment burning in the restricted habitat. 

• The distribution of size classes would be at or exceed the minimum desired in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the desired minimum in the 

restricted other habitat and would be below desired minimum in the target/threshold 

habitat. 

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would be very close to desired minimum in 

the target/threshold habitat and would be well below desired minimum in restricted other. 

• Overall average Gambel oak basal area would be above desired minimum in all habitats 

except RU 5 restricted other where it would be a limited component within that 

landscape.

• All habitats would be approaching desired minimum CWD greater than12 inches and 

would be below the desired minimum in snags greater than18 inches. 

In 2050: 

• Basal area and SDI density would exceed desired in all habitats.

• The distribution of size classes would be at or exceed the desired minimum in the 12- to 

18-inch and the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats.

• Stocking in the 24-inch plus size class would exceed the desired minimum in the 

restricted other habitat and would remain below the desired minimum in the 

target/threshold habitat.

• Average trees per acre 18 inches and larger would exceed desired minimum in the 

target/threshold habitat and would remain below desired minimum in restricted other. 

• Overall average Gambel oak basal area would be above desired minimum in all habitats 

but would remain limited in RU 5 restricted other.

• All habitats would show an increase in CWD greater than12 inches and snags greater 

than 18 inches between 2020 and 2050.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 137

Table 47. Alternative A–D MSO habitat forest structure and habitat components projected to the years 2020 and 2050**

Alternative

Basal Area 

(BA)

SDI 

(% of 

maximum)

12.0–17.9′′ 

(% of total 

SDI)

18.0–23.9′′ 

(Avg. % of 

total SDI)

24.0′′ + 

(Avg. % of 

total SDI)

Average 

Trees per 

Acre 18′′+ 

Average 

Gambel Oak 

BA % of 

Total BA

Tons CWD 

>12′′ Snags >18′′ 

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

Restricted Target/Threshold*

A 171 190 86 88 27 26 16 20 7 10 19.0 26.2 23 22 1.5 2.5 0.6 1.5

B 146 178 75 83 28 23 20 23 9 11 19.3 27.6 27 26 1.0 1.9 0.6 1.5

C 136 171 71 81 23 21 20 20 10 12 18.3 24.2 29 28 1.1 1.9 0.6 1.3

D 149 179 76 84 28 23 19 23 9 11 19.3 27.6 26 25 1.5 2.4 0.6 1.5

Restricted Other

A 147 169 72 76 30 28 14 20 7 10 14.1 22.7 17 18 0.7 1.5 0.5 1.1

B 78 111 37 49 22 19 22 19 18 19 11.5 17.0 22 21 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.9

C 78 112 37 49 22 19 22 19 18 19 11.4 17.0 22 21 0.8 1.6 1.0 0.9

D 91 127 46 58 20 18 20 17 17 16 11.9 17.0 23 22 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.9

Protected

A 164 181 80 81 31 28 16 22 8 11 17.8 27.5 12 12 1.1 2.4 0.7 1.7

B 154 175 72 76 32 27 17 24 9 12 18.0 28.2 13 13 0.8 2.1 0.7 1.7

C 152 174 71 75 32 27 18 25 9 13 18.1 28.4 13 14 0.7 2.1 0.7 1.7

D 159 178 74 77 32 28 17 24 9 12 18.0 28.0 13 13 1.1 2.3 0.7 1.7

*Restricted target/threshold is displayed as (average target/average threshold) a combined average. 

**In comparison to table 7 in chapter 1, two additional evaluation categories have been included: average percent of total SDI by size class and average Gambel oak BA (percent 

of total BA).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Old Growth

Old growth allocations are based on current conditions within the project area along with forest 

plan specific management direction. Most sites currently do not fully meet the minimum criteria 

for old growth conditions as listed in the forest plans. However, the old growth allocated areas are 

closest to meeting old growth conditions. See chapter 1 for a detailed discussion of forest plan 

direction and old growth allocations within this project. 

Alternatives A–D 

In 2020 in ponderosa pine, the average conditions are at or above the minimum criteria with the 

following exceptions: 

All alternatives (A–D):

• Trees per acre larger than 18-inch d.b.h. and 180 years old. This condition is deficit in 

all SUs. The age of these trees is estimated to be in the range of 100 to 140 years old. 

• CWD greater than 12 inches is estimated to be deficit throughout RU 4 and 6, and in 

various SUs.

• Snags per acre are estimated to be deficit in RU 6.

Alternatives B, C, and D: 

• Trees per acre larger than 18-inch d.b.h. and 180 years old. This condition would be 

deficit in all SUs. The age of these trees is estimated to be in the range of 100 to 140 

years old. 

• Basal area per acre would be below the minimum threshold of 90 square feet. 

• CWD greater than 12 inches would be deficit throughout RU 5 and 6, and in various 

SUs.

In all alternatives, ponderosa pine old growth conditions would improve over time in terms of 

meeting the minimum criteria. In 2050, all RUs would be very close to or exceed the minimum 

criteria for trees per acre larger than 18-inch d.b.h. with the exception of RU 6. The age of these 

trees is estimated be in the range of 130 to 170 years old. It is estimated that all the other criteria 

would be met throughout the allocated old growth acres. 

In pinyon-juniper in 2020, the average conditions are at or above the minimum criteria with the 

exception of tree age and CWD. The age of the 12 inches and larger trees is estimated to be 

approximately 90 to 120 years old with a few relic trees approaching the 200-year-old criteria. 

The CWD would be slightly below the equivalent of two pieces per acre. By 2050, the average 

conditions on the old growth acres would meet or exceed the minimum criteria with the exception 

of tree age.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 139

Forest Health

Bark Beetle

All Alternatives

Table 48 compares bark beetle hazard ratings by alternative. Alternative A has the highest hazard 

rating in both the short and long term. Alternatives B and C would have the highest percent of 

area with a low to moderate hazard rating in both the short and long term. Stands with a hazard 

rating of low or moderate would be expected to be resistant to successful bark beetle attack and 

large-scale mortality.

In alternative A, the overall hazard in 2020 is high across 83 percent of the analysis area. This 

increases to 92 percent in 2050. In alternatives B and C, the overall hazard in 2020 would be high 

across 26 percent of the analysis area. This would increase to 53 percent in 2050. In alternative D, 

the overall hazard in 2020 would be high across 45 percent of the analysis area. This would

increase to 65 percent in 2050. 

Table 48. Alternative A–D 2020 and 2050 bark beetle hazard rating

Hazard Rating Alternative A

Percent of Area

Alternative B

Percent of Area

Alternative C

Percent of Area

Alternative D

Percent of Area

Low – 2020 4 39 38 28

Low – 2050 1 20 19 15

Moderate – 2020 13 36 36 26

Moderate – 2050 7 28 27 20

High – 2020 83 26 26 45

High – 2050 92 53 53 65

Dwarf Mistletoe

All Alternatives

Table 49 summarizes the change in infection level by alternative. In alternative A, by 2050 there 

would be an increase in the percent of area within the moderate/high infection level group and 

also an overall increase in the average percent of trees infected. This is an indication that 

mistletoe infection is intensifying and spreading over time. Alternative C would reduce the 

percent of moderate/high the most (8 percent reduction), followed by alternative B (6 percent 

reduction). The percentages for 2050 indicate mistletoe infection would intensify and spread at a 

slower rate in alternatives B, C, and D than alternative A, with alternative B and C providing the 

least intensification and rate of spread. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 49. Alternative A–D 2020 and 2050 dwarf mistletoe infection level by alternative

Infection Level

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

None/Low Percent of Area 59 56 61 58 60 57 60 56

None/Low Average Percent 

Trees Infected

7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 

Moderate/High Percent of Area 41 43 39 42 40 43 40 44

Moderate/High Average Percent 

Trees Infected

45 47 39 44 39 44 40 44

Extreme Percent of Area <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Extreme Average Percent 

Trees Infected

89 85 88 88 87 87 88 84

Large Tree/Old Forest Structure Sustained Over Time Across the Landscape

Alternatives B, C, and D

Restoration treatments proposed in alternatives B, C, and D are designed to manage for old age 

trees in order to have and sustain as much old forest structure as possible across the landscape. 

Old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Reference the old tree implementation plan in 

appendix D of the DEIS. 

The analysis presented for MSO indicates the post-treatment distribution of size classes has good 

representation in the 18- to 24-inch size classes in all habitats. Stocking in the 24-inch plus size 

class would have good representation in the restricted other habitat and would be 

underrepresented in the target/threshold habitat. The goshawk analysis indicates that mature and 

old forest structural stages that are currently underrepresented would trend toward improved 

representation in all habitats. 

Treatments within areas currently allocated old growth would maintain existing old growth 

structural attributes and would be managed to move toward those conditions over time. The 

ponderosa pine old growth analysis above indicates old growth structural attributes would 

continue to develop and improve across the landscape. 

The forest health discussion presents that the overall sustainability of the ponderosa pine forest 

would be improved across the landscape including the large/old tree component.

Vegetation Composition and Diversity

All Alternatives

In alternative A, ponderosa pine tree canopy would continue to increase, shading out understory 

herbaceous vegetation and further reducing forage production and species diversity. Historic 

grasslands, savannas, and forest openings would not be restored. Oak and aspen growth and vigor 

would continue to be stagnated due to competition with pine, resulting in lowered resistance to 

insects and disease and eventual mortality. Oak and aspen regeneration ability would continue to 

be impaired. Ponderosa pine tree canopy would continue to increase, shading out understory sage 

and further reducing the sage component and historic pattern within the pine-sage mosaic. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 141

In alternatives B, C, and D, treatments would result in establishment of vigorous aspen 

regeneration free of competition from overtopping ponderosa pine. Treatments in pine-sage 

would result in enhancement of the sage component and restore the historic forest pattern within 

the pine-sage mosaic.

There would be improved vigor of existing oak and establishment of a variety of oak size and age 

classes across the landscape. Improved oak conditions would be most prevalent within the 

mechanically treated MSO restricted other habitat (65,024 acres in alternative B and 63,191 acres 

in alternative C). Overall, post-treatment oak basal area would be 5 percent higher in this habitat 

in alternatives B and C compared to the alternative A.

Alternatives B, C, and D treatments would restore historic grasslands, savannas, and forest 

openings by removing ponderosa pine tree canopy that is shading out understory herbaceous 

vegetation and reducing forage production and species diversity. 

Other Direct and Indirect Effects

Residual Tree Damage

In alternatives B, C, and D, some damage to residual trees would be expected with the felling, 

tractor yarding, and piling operations associated with mechanical treatments in ponderosa pine. 

Alternative B would result in the most potential damage (386,762 acres), followed by alternative 

D (386,724 acres), and then alternative C (384,043 acres) (see table 50). Damage would be 

minimized through contract administration and proper harvest methods.

All piling and/or low-severity burning treatments would reduce understory stocking and reduce 

intertree competition as well as stimulate understory vegetation (shrubs, forbs, grasses). 

Table 50. Alternatives B, C, and D residual tree damage

Ground-disturbing Actions Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Felling, tractor yarding, piling 386,762 acres 384,043 acres 386,724 acres

Sustained Yield of Forest Products

In alternative A, there would be no beneficial effect of timber harvest (no biomass output) by 

meeting the Coconino and Kaibab forest plan goals of providing a sustained yield of forest 

products and providing a sustained level of timber outputs to support local dependent industries.

Timber harvest of 243,302,331 cubic feet of biomass from the Coconino NF and 122,856,697 

cubic feet of biomass from the Kaibab NF would be a direct beneficial effect of alternative B. In 

alternative C, timber harvest of 245,343,350 cubic feet of biomass from the Coconino NF and 

122,393,816 cubic feet of biomass from the Kaibab NF would be direct beneficial effects. In 

alternative D, timber harvest of 243,299,684 cubic feet of biomass from the Coconino NF and 

122,856,697cubic feet of biomass from the Kaibab NF would be the direct beneficial effects. 

Alternative C would provide the most biomass on both forests (see table 51).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 51. Cubic feet of biomass (forest products) by alternative and forest

Forest Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Coconino NF 0 243,302,331 245,343,350 243,299,684

Kaibab NF 0 122,856,697 122,393,816 122,856,697

Total 366,159,029 367,737,165 366,156,380

In alternative A, vegetation development (ingrowth and mortality) within current road rights-ofway would continue on the current trajectory. In alternatives B, C, and D, road decommissioning 

would allow ingrowth of forest vegetation once the road is decommissioned (approximately 2,712 

acres).

In alternatives B, C, and D, constructing temporary roads would remove trees and forest 

vegetation within the road rights-of-way on approximately 735 acres (table 52). Opening 

decommissioned roads may remove trees and forest vegetation that has become established 

(within the road right-of-way since the road was last maintained) within approximately 816 acres. 

Road reconstruction consists of road improvement activities and road realignments activities.

Road realignment of 10 miles of road would remove approximately 30 acres of trees and forest 

vegetation within the area being reconstructed. Thirty miles of road improvement would be 

expected to occur on small discreet areas and would be expected to remove about 100 acres of 

forest vegetation. The above listed effects cover the maximum range of management actions.

Table 52. Acres of ground disturbance from road actions in alternatives B, C, and D

Ground-disturbing Actions Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Temporary road construction 735 735 735

Temporary opening of decommissioned roads 816 816 816

Road reconstruction 130 130 130

Aspen Fencing

In alternatives B, C, and D, aspen fencing would occur after mechanical and burning treatments 

and would have no effect to the vegetation. Leaving felled material on the ground for 

jackstrawing would forego the opportunity to use that material for wood products.

Springs and Channels 

In alternatives B, C, and D, springs and ephemeral channels are inclusions within the mechanical 

and burn treatment areas. Any tree removal that occurs as part of the restoration of these areas 

would be part of the design for those mechanical treatments that occur around these areas, and the 

effects to the forest vegetation would be similar to the overall treatment. Fencing would have no 

effect to the vegetation. Bank recontouring and stabilization would occur along 39 miles of 

ephemeral channels. This activity would disturb existing forest vegetation. Up to 5 miles of 

willow reestablishment would occur where evidence indicates historic willow presence. This 

would create vegetation diversity and allow natural willow expansion into adjacent areas of 

suitable habitat. The above listed effects cover the maximum range of management actions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 143

Forest Plan Amendments

The following is a description of how forest plan amendments under this EIS would modify the 

forest plans’ standards and guidelines and what the effects to the vegetation resource would be if 

the amendment did not occur.

Coconino NF

Amendment 1 in alternatives B and D: If the amendment did not occur, mechanical treatments 

would be limited to a maximum 9-inch d.b.h. in the 18 PACs, thereby restricting the treatment to 

a fuels reduction objective and reducing the ability to improve MSO habitat in terms of age class 

diversity and liberation of overtopped oak. Treatments within MSO habitat would continue to 

meet the intent of the MSO recovery plan, and the MSO habitat definition would not have an 

effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes. Following existing forest plan language 

concerning MSO population and habitat monitoring or MSO habitat design would not have an 

effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes.

Amendment 1 in alternative C: If the amendment did not occur, mechanical treatments would 

be limited to a maximum 9-inch d.b.h. in the 18 PACs. This would restrict the treatment to a fuels 

reduction objective and reduce the ability to improve MSO habitat in terms of age class diversity 

and liberation of overtopped oak. Without the use of prescribed fire in 56 MSO core areas, the 

opportunity to improve MSO habitat in terms of reducing litter/duff cover and stimulating 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation would be eliminated. 

Treatments within MSO habitat would continue to meet the intent of the MSO recovery plan, and 

the MSO habitat definition would not have an effect on the treatments themselves or their 

outcomes. Mechanical treatments within the 6,321 acres of target/threshold habitat would follow 

the denser 150 square feet basal area guidance, thereby reducing the ability to improve MSO 

nesting/roosting habitat in terms of sustainability, as indicated by high potential for densityrelated mortality and high bark beetle hazard rating, as well as reducing the ability to improve age 

class diversity and the liberation of overtopped oak. Following existing forest plan language 

concerning MSO population and habitat monitoring or MSO habitat design would not have an 

effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes.

Amendment 2 in alternatives B, C, and D: If the amendment did not occur, the lack of 

clarifying language describing the relationship between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural 

openings across the landscape could result in interspace establishment being eliminated from the 

treatment design. The only features contributing to landscape openness would be existing natural 

openings. If that were to occur, it would inhibit the ability to meet desired conditions in terms of 

creating a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of varying shapes and sizes, enhancing the 

representation of all age and size classes, sustaining old forest structure across the landscape, 

improving forest health, and enriching vegetation diversity and composition. 

The plans lack explicit language for measuring canopy cover. Treatments within goshawk habitat 

would continue to meet the intent of the forest plans with regards to canopy cover, and the lack of 

explicit language for how or where it is measured would not have an effect on the treatments 

themselves or their outcomes. The 29,017 acres would be managed under the current forest plan 

guidelines, and desired conditions consistent with an open reference condition would not be met. 

Treatments within goshawk habitat would continue to meet the intent of the forest plan 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

guidelines. Defining these terms is for clarification purposes and would not have an effect on the 

treatments themselves or their outcomes.

Amendment 3 in alternatives B, C, and D: If the amendment did not occur, it could potentially 

result in areas not being treated in order to attain a “no effect” determination. Without treatment, 

these areas would not move toward desired conditions in terms of creating a mosaic of 

interspaces and tree groups of varying shapes and sizes, enhancing the representation of all age 

and size classes, sustaining old forest structure across the landscape, improving forest health, and 

enriching vegetation diversity and composition. 

Kaibab NF

Amendment 1 in alternatives B, C, and D: If the amendment did not occur, the lack of 

clarifying language describing the relationship between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural 

openings across the landscape could result in interspace establishment being eliminated from the 

treatment design. The only features contributing to landscape openness would be existing natural 

openings. If that were to occur, it would inhibit the ability to meet desired conditions in terms of 

creating a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of varying shapes and sizes, enhancing the 

representation of all age and size classes, sustaining old forest structure across the landscape, 

improving forest health, and enriching vegetation diversity and composition. 

The plans lack explicit language for measuring canopy cover. Treatments within goshawk habitat 

would continue to meet the intent of the forest plans with regards to canopy cover and the lack of 

explicit language for how or where it is measured would not have an effect on the treatments 

themselves or their outcomes. The 27,637 acres (alternatives B and D) or the 27,675 acres 

(alternative C) would be managed under current forest plan guidelines, and desired conditions 

consistent with an open reference condition would not be met. Treatments within goshawk habitat 

would continue to meet the intent of the forest plan guidelines. Defining these terms is for 

clarification purposes and would not have an effect on the treatments themselves or their 

outcomes. 

Alternative 2 in alternatives B and D: If the amendment did not occur, treatments within MSO 

habitat would continue to meet the intent of the MSO recovery plan, and the MSO habitat 

definition would not have an effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes. Managing for 

10 percent threshold habitat within the Kaibab NF portion of the project area could result in 

habitat that is not capable of maintaining a population of MSOs and could not be sustained 

through time if designated as threshold habitat. Following existing forest plan language 

concerning MSO population and habitat monitoring or MSO habitat design would not have an 

effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes.

Amendment 2 in alternative C: If the amendment did not occur, fire and mechanical treatments 

would not take place within the Garland Prairie RNA. The effect of no action within the RNA 

would include continued encroachment of existing interspace by ingrowth and tree crown 

expansion and no reestablishment of historic openings which would further reduce forage 

production and understory species diversity. This would result in declining forest health in terms 

of increased probability of density-related mortality, increased beetle hazard, continued forest 

conditions that encourage mistletoe spread and intensification, and decreased resilience under a 

warmer, drier climate.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 145

Amendment 3 in alternative C: If the amendment did not occur, treatments within MSO habitat 

would continue to meet the intent of the MSO recovery plan and the MSO habitat definition 

would not have an effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes. Managing for 10 

percent threshold habitat within the Kaibab NF portion of the project area could result in habitat 

that is not capable of maintaining a population of MSOs and that could not be sustained through 

time if designated as threshold habitat. Mechanical treatments within the 2,090 acres of 

target/threshold habitat would follow the denser 150 square basal area guidance, thereby reducing 

the ability to improve MSO nesting/roosting habitat in terms of sustainability, as indicated by 

high potential for density-related mortality and high bark beetle hazard rating as well as reducing 

the ability to improve age class diversity and the liberation of overtopped oak. Following existing 

forest plan language concerning MSO population and habitat monitoring or MSO habitat design 

would not have an effect on the treatments themselves or their outcomes. 

Cumulative Effects

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context is the larger 988,764-acre analysis area. 

Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of wildfire and vegetation management activities that 

have occurred since 2001 and as changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable 

activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The timeframe considered is 

approximately 10 years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed will have 

been completed and the vegetation response to these actions will have occurred. 

Table 53 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment, and 

prescribed fire, as well as wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 2001 to 2010: 

• Mechanical vegetation management activities have mainly consisted of tree thinning. 

This includes 50,940 acres with a fuels reduction emphasis, 14,950 acres with a 

ponderosa pine restoration emphasis, and 750 acres with an emphasis on improving forest 

structure, health, and growth. There has also been 12,560 acres of tree removal to restore 

ponderosa pine savannas and encroached grasslands, 2,650 acres of removal of dead, 

damaged, or dwarf mistletoe infected trees to improve forest health, 100 acres of tree 

removal to restore aspen inclusions, and 1,935 acres of habitat improvement treatments 

that reduced tree density within antelope travel corridors. Within the project area there 

has been 640 acres of tree and vegetation removal associated with powerline corridor 

management and protection. 

• Fuels treatments that have been accomplished in association with the above listed 

mechanical treatments include 3,910 acres of mechanical fuels treatments (slash lopping, 

crushing, piling, and jackpot burning), 5,070 acres of machine piling and burning, and 

59,640 acres of broadcast burning. The primary focus of these treatments was to 

rearrange and reduce activities generated fuels.

• Prescribed burns have been implemented on 47,970 acres to reduce natural fuels 

accumulations and reintroduce fire to fire-adapted ecosystems.

• Wildfires from 2001 to 2010 have burned on approximately 108,160 acres of the project 

area. Of these acres, it is estimated that the overall average burn severity to the vegetation 

was 20 percent high severity, 30 percent mixed severity, and 50 percent low severity. 

There is wide variability among these percentages from fire to fire.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 53. Approximate acres of vegetation management activities and wildfire within 

the project area from 2001 to 2010

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Mechanical 

Vegetation 

Management

Thinning—Fuels Reduction Emphasis 50,940

Thinning— Restoration Emphasis 14,950

Thinning—Stand Improvement 750

Savanna/Grassland Restoration 12,560

Sanitation/Salvage 2,650

Aspen Restoration 100

Habitat Improvement 1,935

Powerline Hazard Tree Removal and Right-of-Way 640

Total Mechanical 84,525

Fuels Treatments

(With Mechanical)

Mechanical Fuels Treatment 3,910

Pile and Burn 5,070

Broadcast Burn 59,640

Total Fuels Treatments 68,620

Prescribed Burn (Burn Only) 47,970

Wildfire 108,160

Forest Structure and Diversity – Mosaic of 

Interspaces and Tree Groups of Varying Sizes and Shapes

The thinning with a restoration emphasis and savanna restoration treatments were designed to 

reestablish forest openings and attain a mosaic of interspaces and tree groups of varying sizes and 

shapes. All other treatments listed were incidental to this desired condition. Mixed-severity 

wildfires resulted in a mosaic of tree mortality and a pattern with indiscriminate interspaces and 

tree groups. The remaining treatments and low-severity wildfire resulted in some irregular tree 

spacing.

Forest Structure – All Age and Size Classes Represented

The main objective of thinning with a fuels reduction emphasis was to reduce canopy fuels and 

the potential for crown fire initiation. Generally, this type of treatment focused on removal of 

trees in the subordinate crown positions and retaining those trees in the dominate and codominate 

crown positions and any pre-settlement trees. This type of treatment resulted in a moderately 

open canopy, even-aged forest structure with very little age and size class diversity.

Thinning treatments with restoration objectives were very similar to the goshawk habitat and 

MSO restricted other habitat treatments proposed under this EIS and have resulted in similar 

diversity in age and size class.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 147

Prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments associated with the above thinning treatments 

resulted in periodic tree mortality of seedling/sapling size trees and susceptible pre-settlement 

trees, further reducing age class diversity.

High- and mixed-severity wildfires caused large-scale mortality across all age and size classes 

resulting in a nonstocked or single age class representation. Wildfires that burned with a low 

severity and prescribed burn only treatments had similar effects to forest structure as the postthinning prescribed fires. 

Old Forest Structure Sustained Over Time Across the Landscape

Thinning treatments retained pre-settlement trees and the largest post-settlement trees. Sanitation 

treatments may have removed some old forest structure. Prescribed fire and low-severity wildfire 

resulted in periodic tree mortality of susceptible pre-settlement trees. Mixed- and high-severity

wildfire killed a large proportion of the old forest structure. Powerline treatments removed any 

old forest structure that was a hazard to the powerline.

Forest Health

Thinning treatments resulted in forest density within the low to moderate density zones. This, in 

turn, had a beneficial effect of improved forest growth and reducing the potential for density and 

bark beetle related mortality. Thinning treatments also removed dwarf mistletoe infected trees, 

reducing the percent of trees infected as well as creating conditions that slowed or inhibited 

mistletoe spread. Prescribed fire and low-severity wildfire also led to localized reduction of forest 

density and dwarf mistletoe infection. 

Thinning treatments reduced risks associated with dense forest conditions and improved 

resilience to the impacts of large-scale disturbance under drier and warmer conditions. Withinforest carbon stocks were reduced by the thinning. Some of the carbon removed has been 

sequestered for a time in the form of pallets and building materials. Mixed and high-severity

wildfires released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and resulted in a carbon source as 

dead material continues to decay. This is especially prevalent in burned areas where the conifer 

forests have not regenerated.

The savanna/grassland restoration treatments implemented restored historic grasslands, savannas, 

and forest openings by removing ponderosa pine tree canopy that was shading out understory 

herbaceous vegetation. Thinning treatments with a restoration objective also restored historic 

forest openings.

Removing conifer competition with mid-story and understory oak as part of the thinning 

contributed to maintaining and improving oak growth and vigor. Mixed- and high-severity

wildfire killed large oaks that were replaced by oak sprouts, thereby changing oak structure from 

old to young. 

Aspen restoration treatments were very similar to the aspen treatments proposed under this 

project and have resulted in aspen regeneration and age class diversity.

Some of the fuels reduction thinning within pine-sage on the Tusayan district removed 

overtopping young pines and improved conditions for understory sage. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A

Alternative A would not contribute to improving forest health or vegetation diversity and 

composition, or sustaining old forest structure over time or moving forest structure toward desired 

conditions. 

Cumulative Effects – Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternative B restoration treatments would contribute an additional 509,195 acres toward 

improving forest health and vegetation diversity/composition, sustaining old forest structure over 

time and moving forest structure toward desired conditions. 

Alternative C restoration treatments would contribute an additional 562,380 acres toward 

improving forest health and vegetation diversity/composition, sustaining old forest structure over 

time and moving forest structure toward desired conditions. 

Alternative D restoration treatments would contribute an additional 489,029 acres toward 

improving forest health and vegetation diversity/composition, sustaining old forest structure over 

time and moving forest structure toward desired conditions. 

Cumulative Effects – Present and 

Foreseeable Vegetation Management Activities 

Table 54 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment, and 

prescribed fire that are ongoing (as of 2011) or are foreseeable within the project area. The effects 

of the thinning with restoration emphasis, savanna/grassland restoration, aspen restoration, as 

well as prescribed fire are similar to what has been described with the proposed treatments for 

this EIS. The effects of the thinning with a fuels reduction emphasis will be similar to those that 

occurred from 2001 to 2010 as discussed above. The salvage involves the removal of down trees 

as a result of the 2010 tornado and has no effect to forest structure or diversity. The maintenance 

of powerline corridors will continue as needed and will remove any vegetation that is a hazard to 

the line.

Table 54. Approximate acres of present and foreseeable vegetation management 

activities within the project area

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Mechanical 

Vegetation 

Management

Thinning—Fuels Reduction Emphasis 6,670

Thinning—Restoration Emphasis* 80,940

Thinning—Stand Improvement 0 

Savanna/Grassland Restoration 11,130

Sanitation/Salvage 4,290

Aspen Restoration 5,130

Habitat Improvement 0 

Powerline Hazard Tree Removal and Right-of-Way 500

Total Mechanical 108,660
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 149

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Fuels 

Treatments

(With 

Mechanical)

Mechanical Fuels Treatment 0 

Pile and Burn 0 

Broadcast Burn 102,470

Total Fuels Treatments 102,470

Prescribed Burn (Burn Only) 5,950

*Vegetation cumulative effects analysis does include the foreseeable (2013) Flagstaff watershed protection 

project even though little information is available on treatments. This analysis assumes both mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments would occur.

Fire Ecology

Only a summary of the fire ecology analysis is presented here and the report is incorporated by 

reference. See the fire ecology specialist report (Lata 2013) for the complete analysis. Fire 

behavior was analyzed at several scales including the project scale (593,211-acre treatment area), 

RU, subunit, and vegetation type/habitat type in order to provide a thorough analysis of specific 

fire effects to different areas. Using various scales of analysis provides site-specific information 

on existing risks and threats to resources and addresses the comments and recommendations 

received throughout the scoping process. FRCC was analyzed at the project area scale for 

ponderosa pine and grasslands as they make up 90 percent of the project area. See the specialist 

report for the complete discussion on analysis methodology. 

The following analysis question was used to evaluate movement toward desired conditions by 

alternative:

Analysis Question 1: Would/how would proposed management actions move the 

area toward the project’s desired condition of having a resilient forest by 

reducing the potential for undesirable fire behavior and effects? Metrics used to 

evaluate differences between alternatives include:

o Type of fire (surface or crown): Acres (quantitative measure) of each potential fire 

type following proposed treatments were evaluated. 

o Canopy characteristics—canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and canopy 

cover (quantitative measures used in fire modeling): These are canopy 

characteristics that are important for modeling fire.

o Surface fuel loading for the fire and emissions modeling includes CWD>3′′, 

litter, and duff (quantitative measure): Used to qualitatively evaluate fire effects. 

o FRCC (qualitative measure): FRCC was determined for ponderosa pine and 

grasslands which make up the largest vegetation types within the treatment area to 

determine the relative departure of those ecosystems from reference conditions 

before and following treatments.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Affected Environment

Existing and desired conditions for fire behavior and FRCC are addressed in the “Fire Ecology” 

section in chapter 1. Most existing condition information is not repeated here.

Fire Behavior at the Landscape Scale

Fire type was modeled for conditions similar to those under which the Schultz Fire burned in 

2010. These were not extreme in terms of fuel moisture, temperature (77 degrees Fahrenheit), or 

relative humidity (14 percent), though fuels were dry and it was windy (steady at 25 mph). These 

conditions are common in June across the project area. 

Fire Behavior by Restoration Unit (RU)

RU 1

RU 1 is currently the 

most at risk of all the 

RUs in regards to 

crown fire and its 

effects. 

Approximately 42 

percent of the RU has 

crown fire potential, 

of which 31 percent 

would be active 

crown fire. Values at 

risk in or adjacent to 

RU 1 include: Lake 

Mary, a source 

watershed for 

Flagstaff and a 

popular recreation 

site for locals and 

visitors to the area 

(subunit 1-1); Pulliam 

Airport, the 

commercial airport 

that serves Flagstaff 

and surrounding 

communities (subunit 

1-1); eastern and 

southern portions of 

the city of Flagstaff; 

the Perkins Telescope 

(subunit 1-1); 

numerous MSO PACs 

(more than any other 

RU), and Walnut 

Canyon National 

Figure 38. Existing fire potential in RU 1
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 151

Monument (subunit 1-1). Figure 38 displays locations of no fire, surface fire, and active/passive 

crown fire. “No fire” includes areas that could not burn under conditions modeled because of 

sparse vegetation (such as on some cinder soils) or no vegetation (water, rock, etc.).

RU 3

RU 3 has the second greatest potential for undesirable fire effects and behavior. Approximately 

39 percent of RU 3 has crown fire potential, of which 30 percent would be active crown fire. 

Winds on the Mogollon Rim are generally out of the southwest; therefore, values at risk in this 

RU include: Interstate 17 and Interstate 40, as well as the communities of Flagstaff, Munds Park, 

Williams, Belmont, Kachina Village, Parks, and Sycamore and Oak Creek Canyon.

Figure 39. Existing fire potential in RU 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

RU 4

RU 4 has a 32 percent potential for crown fire, of which 25 percent would be active crown fire. 

RU 4 is located west and north of Flagstaff, and north of Williams and Interstate 40. Wildfire in 

RU 4 has potential to affect the communities of Flagstaff, Williams, Parks, and Belmont, though 

the prevailing winds would draw fire away from these communities. There is also potential to 

impact the Fort Valley Experimental Station northwest of Flagstaff. 

Over the last 20 years, RU 4 has been impacted by several large fires, including the Hockderffer 

(2004, 16,000 acres) and Pumpkin (2000, 8,700 acres) Fires. Areas of potential active crown fire 

currently exist adjacent to heavy fuel loading in mixed conifer on Kendrick and Sitgreaves 

Mountains, and the San Francisco Peaks.

Figure 40. Existing fire potential in RU 4
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 153

RU 5

RU 5 has 22 percent potential for crown fire, of which over half would be active crown fire. This 

RU includes acres burned in the Schultz Fire (2010, 17,000 acres) and acres burned in the Radio 

Fire (1977, 2,600 acres). The Radio Fire burned area is mostly on Mount Elden which is 

immediately upslope and adjacent to northern Flagstaff. Housing developments (including Doney 

Park) and the city of Flagstaff would be adjacent and mostly downslope from any fire occurring 

in this RU. 

Figure 41. Existing fire potential in RU 5
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

RU 6

RU 6 has a 19 percent potential for crown fire. Of this percent, over 50 percent would be active 

crown fire. RU 6 is entirely within the Tusayan Ranger District (Kaibab NF). It is located in close 

proximity to the town of Tusayan and located immediately south of, and adjacent to, Grand 

Canyon National Park. RU 6 is the driest of all the RUs. Over half of the RU has been affected by 

wildfire in the last 10 years. Potential fire behavior in pinyon-juniper which is adjacent to the 

town of Tusayan is a concern. 

Figure 42. Existing fire potential in RU 6
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 155

Canopy Characteristics and Surface Fuels Affecting Fire Behavior

The existing and desired condition for canopy characteristics (canopy base heights and canopy 

bulk density) and surface fuels (CWD greater than 3 inches, litter, and duff) are presented in 

chapter 1.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

The existing and desired conditions for FRCC are presented in chapter 1. 

Environmental Consequences

Throughout this section, changes directly attributable to proposed actions—such as thinning or 

prescribed fire—are direct effects. These include changes to canopy bulk density, canopy base 

height, consumption of surface fuel, etc. Changes to the potential behavior and effects of 

wildfires that result from the direct effects are considered indirect effects.

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

Fire Behavior at the Landscape Scale

At the landscape scale, 34 percent of ponderosa pine and 9 percent of grasslands would have the 

potential for high-severity effects from crown fire. The potential for crown fire exceeds the 

desired condition in ponderosa pine by 24 percent and 6 percent in grasslands. Modeled fire type 

shows the potential for multiple, large (greater than 1,000 acres), high-severity fires across the 

landscape, with the actual extents dependent on ignition location and environmental conditions. 

As canopies close up, surface fuel loading would also continue to increase. In the long term 

(2050), more area would be subject to high severity surface fire. The changes in canopy fuels 

would have detrimental effects on understory vegetation and would increasingly suppress surface 

vegetation (forbs, grasses, and shrubs). The combination of abundant and contiguous canopy 

fuels, the lack of understory vegetation, and an already high and increasing surface fuel load, 

would combine to increase the potential for high-severity fire, maintaining the area in a FRCC of 

3 into the foreseeable future. 

Fire Behavior at the RU Scale

In 2020, no RUs would meet desired conditions for fire behavior, ranging from 42 percent (RU 1) 

to 14 percent (RU 6) (table 55). In RU 1, there is potential for 60,000 acres of ponderosa pine to 

burn with high severity (potential crown fire combined with the potential for high severity surface 

fire), a subset of which would convert to a nonforested vegetation type (Savage and Mast 2005). 

Should wildfire burn though the Lake Mary watershed, the second order fire effects (debris flows

and flooding with sediment-laden water) could jeopardize the water supply (from the lakes) as 

well as, at least temporarily, require the closure of recreation sites.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 55. Modeled fire type for alternative A (2020) by restoration unit* in acres and 

percent of treatment area

RU Surface Passive Active No Fire

RU 1 90,633 (58%) 18,251 (12%) 46,463 (30%) 957 (0.6%) 

RU 3 92,532 (62%) 14,219 (9%) 42,082 (28%) 886 (0.6%) 

RU 4 111,840 (68%) 11,850 (7%) 41,285 (25%) 633 (0.4%) 

RU 5 52,931 (70%) 7,265 (10%) 10,100 (13%) 5,800 (6.1%) 

RU 6 37,121 (85%) 2,766 (6%) 3,600 (8%) 42 (0.1%) 

Total 385,056 (65%) 54,351 (9%) 143,530 (24%) 8,319 (1.4%) 

* “No fire” includes acres on which there were insufficient fuels to carry fire, including water, rock, cinders, 

areas of sparse vegetation, etc.

In RU 3, multiple drainages line up with the prevailing winds and have the potential to draw fire 

toward communities such as Pumphouse Wash (Kachina Village) and Munds Canyon (Munds 

Park). Adjacency concerns for fire behavior include a number of communities as well as Oak 

Creek and Sycamore Canyons. Second order fire effects (flooding, debris flows, deposition, 

erosion, etc.) would have potential to impact Oak Creek and Sycamore Canyons, with the specific 

locations depending on the slope, proximity, and size of high-severity fire. Overall, with no 

treatment, there is potential for over 56,000 acres of crown fire (37 percent of the RU), of which 

over 42,000 (28 percent of the RU) would be active crown fire. 

No action in RU 4 would have the potential to affect the communities of Flagstaff, Williams, 

Parks, and Belmont, though the prevailing winds would tend to blow fire away from most of the 

populations in Williams, Parks, and Belmont. There is also potential to impact the Fort Valley 

Experimental Station northwest of Flagstaff. Overall, with no treatment, there is potential for over 

53,000 acres of crown fire (32 percent of the RU), of which over 41,000 (25 percent of the RU) 

would be active crown fire. 

The northeastern area of RU 5 has scattered cinder cones and cinder areas which support only 

sparse vegetation. In these areas, active crown fire is less likely because of decreased potential for 

high intensity surface fire and decreased canopy fuel continuity. Overall, with no treatment, there 

is potential for over 17,000 acres of crown fire (23 percent of the RU), of which over 10,000 (13 

percent of the RU) would be active crown fire. 

Active crown fire in RU6 would mostly be dispersed, with only a few areas of contiguous crown 

fire. Overall, with no treatment, there would be potential for over 6,000 acres of crown fire (15 

percent of the RU), of which over 3,000 (13 percent of the RU) would be active crown fire. 

Canopy Characteristics and Surface 

Fuels Affecting Fire Behavior and Effects

Potential changes to canopy base height and crown bulk density were modeled for the short 

(2020) and long term (2050) (table 56). Under this alternative, canopy base height and crown 

bulk density slowly move toward desirable conditions, as a result of the lower branches becoming 

shaded out by increasing canopy cover. Increasing canopy cover, combined with the other canopy 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 157

characteristics at or below desired conditions, would continue to make undesirable fire behavior 

and effects more likely.

Table 56. Alternative A canopy characteristics 2010 to 2050

Year

Canopy 

Base Height 

(feet)

Desired 

Condition 

(feet)

Canopy Bulk 

Density 

(kilograms per 

square meter) 

Desired 

Condition 

(kilograms 

per square 

meter) 

Canopy 

Cover 

(percent) 

2010 14.86 18 0.061 0.05 66

2020 16.63 18 0.061 0.05 68

2050 22.22 18 0.059 0.05 72

Total surface fuel loading (CWD greater than 3 inches, litter, and duff) as modeled over 40 years 

shows a steady increase from approximately 16 to 22 tons per acre. There would be 

approximately 18,000 acres with surface fuel loading greater than 20 tons per acre (desired 

condition). These types of fuel loadings could produce undesirable fire effects, including large 

quantities of emissions. Areas that would have the highest surface fuel loading are often 

associated with MSO PACs including core areas. RUs 1 and 3 would have the highest surface fuel 

loading.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

Under alternative A (table 57), fire regime/condition class would deteriorate and, by 2050, FRCC 

3 acres in ponderosa pine would increase by 13 percent (over 65,000 acres) and FRCC 3 acres in 

grasslands would increase by 5 percent (almost 3,000 acres).

Table 57. Alternative A FRCC 2010 to 2050 in acres and percent

Vegetation 

Type

Condition 

Class 2010 2020 2050

Ponderosa 

Pine

1 70,680 (14%) 55,534 (11%) 5,049 (1%) 

2 136,311 (27%) 95,923 (19%) 136,311 (27%) 

3 297,866 (59%) 353,400 (70%) 363,497 (72%) 

Grasslands 1 10,097 (18%) 6,731 (12%) 1,683 (3%) 

2 40,389 (72%) 42,632 (76%) 45,998 (82%) 

3 5,610 (10%) 6,731 (12%) 8,414 (15%) 

Alternatives B, C, and D

The environmental consequences are based on the modeling assumption that one mechanical 

treatment and two prescribed burns would occur between 2012 and 2019. From 2020 to 2050, no 

wildfires or additional treatments of any kind were modeled. The effects are based on applying 

the design features and mitigation displayed in the “Fire” section of appendix C. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Effects Common to All Alternatives

• In the short term (up to 10 years), first entry burns (burns which are the first time fire 

occurs in an area that has missed 10 to 20 years of fire cycles) would: (1) effectively raise

the canopy base height, decrease canopy bulk density, and decrease the likelihood of 

crown fire; (2) consume a large portion of accumulated litter and duff, along with the 

majority of dead/down woody fuels less than 3 inches in diameter; and (3) thin out some 

small trees (particularly seedlings), maintaining a mosaic of groups and interspaces. In 

areas where fire has been excluded for many decades, a single prescribed fire would be

inadequate to reduce fuels (Lynch et al. 2000). 

• In the long term, second entry burns are those burns which occur within 2 to 5 years of a 

first entry burn. For second entry burns, fuel loads would be significantly lower than in 

first entry burns, producing much less smoke and having lower potential for crown fire or 

high-severity fire.

• As thinning and first entry burns were completed, burn windows would expand for larger 

areas so more burning could occur when ventilation was good. The ability to manage 

unplanned ignitions would expand as 4FRI (and other projects) is implemented. 

• Throughout the life of this project, it would be likely that some large and/or old trees 

would be damaged or killed by prescribed fire as over 30,000 to 50,000 acres of 

prescribed fire would occur each year. Reducing accumulations of fuel in the vicinity of 

large and/or old trees is best accomplished by a combination of mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments, with the specific need being site specific. However, the 

damage or mortality to these trees would be mitigated (see “Fire Design Features and 

Mitigation” in appendix C of the DEIS).

• Potential adaptive management actions for transportation, springs, and roads were 

reviewed. None of the adaptive actions would result in additional effects that are not 

already disclosed or addressed in alternatives B, C, and D. 

Fire Behavior at the Landscape Scale

Table 58 displays post-treatment fire behavior at the landscape scale for alternatives B, C, and D. 

In alternative B, the potential for crown fire at the landscape (treatment area) scale would be 

reduced from 34 percent to 5 percent. Alternative C best reduces the crown fire potential to 4 

percent. Alternative D reduces crown fire potential the least (7 percent). See the specialist report 

which provides environmental consequences by vegetation type and restoration subunit. All 

action alternatives would meet the desired condition of having crown fire potential on 10 percent 

or less of the landscape.

Table 58. Alternatives B, C, and D landscape scale (treatment area) fire behavior

Modeled Fire Behavior 

(Percent of Treatment Area*)

Existing 

Condition

Alt. B

(2020)

Alt. C

(2020)

Alt. D

(2020)

Surface fire 64 94 94 92

Passive crown fire 9 3 3 4 

Active crown fire 25 2 1 3 

* Total percentages do not include acres that would not support fire. These acres include area where there were 

insufficient fuels to carry fire, including water, rock, cinders, areas of sparse vegetation, etc.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 159

Fire Behavior at the RU Scale

At the RU scale, the post-treatment potential for crown fire in alternative B would range from 2 to 

8 percent and from 2 to 7 percent in alternatives C and D. Alternatives B and C would meet the 

purpose and need by moving the project area toward desired conditions of having 10 percent or 

less crown fire potential. Alternative D meets desired conditions for all RUs except RU 1. 

Approximately 12 percent of the acres in RU 1 would remain at risk of crown fire. 

RU 1

Only alternatives B and C would meet fire behavior desired conditions. Crown fire potential 

would be reduced to 8 percent in alternative B and 7 percent in alternative C. Potential fire 

behavior would decrease downslope from the mixed conifer on Mormon Mountain, as well as the 

city of Flagstaff to the northwest. In alternatives B and C, over 60 percent of active crown fire 

potential would occur in MSO protected habitat. In alternative D, total crown fire potential would 

be 12 percent, exceeding desired conditions. Within RU 1, MSO protected habitat would account 

for over 92 percent of all active crown fire potential.

RU 3

Alternatives B, C, and D would meet fire behavior desired conditions by reducing crown fire 

potential to 5 percent of the treatment area for alternatives B and C (less than 8,800 acres), and 6 

percent for alternative D (9,373 acres). Of the 5 percent, 1 percent would be active crown fire for 

B and C (less than 2,200 acres), and 2 percent for D. There would still be potential for active 

crown fire in PACs in Kelly Canyon and Pumphouse Wash, including potential for some active 

and passive crown fire on slopes greater than 30 and 40 percent. Outside of MSO PACs, there 

would be some contiguous areas of both passive and active crown fire. However, the majority of 

potential crown fire would be scattered passive crown fire. 

RU 4

Alternatives B, C, and D would meet fire behavior desired conditions. In alternative B, RU 4 

would have the potential for 3 percent crown fire (4,585 acres) and alternative C would have the 

potential for 2 percent (3,505 acres) crown fire. Alternative D would result in the most (5 percent) 

crown fire potential (7, 148 acres). All alternatives would have the potential for approximately 1 

percent active crown fire. 

Most of the potential crown fire in RU 4 would be in scattered patches, with few areas of 

contiguous active crown fire greater than about 15 acres, mostly in areas classified as grasslands 

or other nonpine vegetation. References to crown fire in grasslands here refer to crown fire in 

trees growing in the grasslands. There would be larger contiguous acreages of passive crown fire 

in goshawk PFAs and areas of lower intensity treatments, and some prescribed fire only 

treatments.

RU 5

Alternatives B, C, and D would meet fire behavior desired conditions. In alternative B, there 

would be 2 percent crown fire potential, and in alternative D, 4 percent. This would be reduced in 

alternative C to 2 percent. For all alternatives, the percent of potential active crown fire would be 

1 percent or less. There are many areas, some larger than 500 acres, in the north and eastern areas 

of this RU that are cinder substrate. In these areas, active crown fire would be less likely because 

of decreased potential for high intensity surface fire.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

RU 6

Alternatives B, C, and D would meet fire behavior desired conditions. In alternatives B and C, 

RU 6 would have 4 percent (2,204) acres with crown fire potential. Of this, 107 acres (less than 1 

percent) would have the potential for active crown fire. In alternative D, the potential for crown 

fire increases to 5 percent. In all alternatives, acres with crown fire potential would occur in nest 

areas/PFA/dPFA (dispersal post-fledgling area) habitats and the potential for passive crown fire 

would be widely dispersed with concentrations in areas with components of juniper and oak, 

particularly on the northeastern and southeastern corners. 

Canopy Characteristics and Surface Fuels Affecting Fire Behavior and Effects

Table 59 displays that the canopy characteristics in alternatives B, C, and D would move toward 

desired conditions immediately post treatment (2020). Alternatives B and C would meet desired 

conditions in both the short (2020) and long (2050) term when compared to the existing condition 

(2010). In the long term (2050), canopy bulk density (when averaged across the landscape) in 

alternative D meets desired conditions. However, when analyzed by desired openness (see the 

canopy cover column in table 59), canopy bulk density would exceed desired conditions on 

approximately 28,000 acres resulting in a high potential for crown fire. 

Table 59. Alternatives B–D canopy characteristics for ponderosa pine from 2010 to 2050

Alt.

Canopy Base Height (feet) Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) Canopy Cover 

(percent) 

2010 2020 2050 Desired 

Condition 2010 2020 2050 Desired Condition

B 14.84 24.73 26.67 18 0.061 0.034 0.040 <0.05 66 55 63

C 14.86 24.71 26.65 18 0.061 0.034 0.040 <0.05 66 55 63

D 14.84 22.79 25.18 18 0.061 0.037 0.043 <0.05 66 58 65

Surface Fuel Loading (CWD Greater Than 3 Inches, Litter, and Duff)

In alternative B, post-treatment surface fuels would be reduced to recommended levels over most 

of the treatment area (5 to 20 tons per acre). The exceptions are mostly in RU 1 in MSO PACs

where there would be surface fuel loadings greater than 20 tons per acre (table 60).

In alternative C, fuel loading would be decreased below 20 tons per acre in most of the treatment 

areas (table 60). There would be approximately 809 acres with surface fuel loading greater than 

20 tons per acre occurring mostly in RU 3 in MSO PACs, a few areas in RU 4, and two areas in 

RU 5 (see figure 57 in the specialist report). In this alternative and in the immediate short term 

(up to 2 years post treatment), CWD greater than 3 inches would range from 2.46 to 2.96 tons per 

acre—below forest plan desired conditions. In the long term (2 plus years post treatment), 

modeling for this project and research (Waltz et al. 2003) suggest that it would be just a year or 2 

before CWD levels once again meet desired conditions. In alternatives B and D, with no 

maintenance treatments after 2020, CWD greater than 3 inches would exceed current forest plan 

guidelines by 2050. When considered by desired openness (see the canopy cover column in table 

59), both alternatives B and C would meet the recommended tons per acre of surface fuel loading. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 161

In alternative D, all treated areas would remain below 20 tons per acre (meet desired conditions) 

when considered by desired openness (table 60). However, when considered at the stand level, 

there would be approximately 3,357 acres with surface fuel loading greater than 20 tons per acre 

in both the short term (2020) and long term (2050) mostly in MSO PACs or goshawk PFAs in RU 

1 and RU 3 where no prescribed fire treatments would occur. 

Table 60. Alternative B–D surface fuel loadings in ponderosa pine from 2010 to 

2050

Alternative

CWD >3" Litter Duff

2010 2020 2050 2010 2020 2050 2010 2020 2050

B 4.44 3.46 7.01 3.97 2.48 4.22 3.76 3.42 3.97

C 4.46 2.93 6.45 3.97 2.12 3.22 3.77 3.42 3.94

D 4.44 5.97 8.80 3.97 3.75 4.49 3.76 3.87 4.50

FRCC

Table 61 compares the existing FRCC to expected changes by alternative. In ponderosa pine in 

the short term (2020), all action alternatives would move toward desired conditions with 

alternative C moving the most acres out of FRCC 3 (33 percent reduction). In the long term 

(2050), the percentage of ponderosa pine in FRCC 3 would increase in all alternatives with 

alternative D most closely resembling the existing condition as approximately 50 percent of the 

landscape would revert back to FRCC 3. 

In grasslands, only alternative C would move toward desired conditions in both the short (2020) 

and long (2050) term. Alternative D would exceed desired conditions in both the short and long 

term.

Table 61. Alternatives B, C, and D FRCC in 2020 and 2050

Vegetation 

Type FRCC

Existing 

Condition 

(2010)

Percent Change in FRCC by 

Alternative and Year

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050

Ponderosa 

Pine

FRCC 1 14 18 15 19 16 8 5 

FRCC 2 27 78 49 81 51 82 45

FRCC 3 59 4 36 0 33 10 50

Grasslands FRCC 1 18 15 10 31 35 15 5 

FRCC 2 72 77 80 66 60 74 80

FRCC 3 10 8 10 3 5 11 15
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Other Restoration Treatments (Springs, Streams, Roads)

Streams and springs would not be expected to have much effect on fire behavior or effects in the 

short term. In the long term, restored hydrology, particularly in springs, may result in increased 

surface fuel loading near springs, allowing wildfire or prescribed fire to creep closer to the water 

source than is generally possible now. Forest plan direction includes using prescribed fire to 

manage fuels in riparian areas.

Many wildfires that have been started by humans begin in proximity to roads. The alternatives 

may result in fewer human-started wildfires. The more heavily used roads may have functioned 

as firebreaks in the past. Once decommissioned, surface fuel loadings would eventually grow 

back, allowing fire to burn across the area. During implementation of the mechanical treatments, 

temporary roads constructed for access (517 miles) would be available for access to burn units, 

and/or to be used as fire lines for prescribed fires. 

Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative B

Alternative B Amendment 1 (Coconino NF): If amendment 1 is implemented, the resulting 

decreases in canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and canopy cover would have the indirect 

effect of slightly decreasing crown fire potential for the 18 MSO PACs that would receive 

mechanical treatments. An additional indirect effect would be to increase the ability of fire 

managers to implement prescribed fire within PACs because of decreased potential fire behavior. 

If amendment 1 is not implemented on the Coconino NF, these 18 PACs (approximately 10,700 

acres) would retain the current forest structure that places them at high risk of high-severity fire. 

Potential fire behavior would make it difficult to implement prescribed fire because of narrow 

burn windows (weather and fuel conditions that would produce the desired fire effects and 

behavior). If prescribed fires were implemented on acres adjacent to PACs, it would be more 

likely that some fire lines would need to be created to avoid burning in the PAC, producing 

ground disturbance that would be less likely under the proposed amendment. There would be 

little effect on emissions, except for a slight decrease in potential emissions in the event of 

wildfire following mechanical treatments within the PACs.

Alternative B Amendment 2 (Coconino NF): If amendment 2 is implemented, it would allow 

29,017 acres to be managed for an open reference condition. An indirect effect of managing for 

open conditions would be to have little potential for active crown fire, moving these acres toward

desired conditions. Open conditions would, in the long run, produce fewer emissions because of 

less litter and debris from trees and the greater herbaceous component to surface fuels. If 

amendment 2 is not implemented on the Coconino NF, some treatments could be implemented, 

but these acres would not move as far toward desired conditions as they would be with the 

amendment.

Alternative B Amendment 3 (Coconino NF): If amendment 3 is implemented, it would allow 

fire to be used to meet objectives if it was determined to be the best tool. Additionally, it would 

allow all significant, or potentially significant, inventoried sites that are not considered “fire 

sensitive” to be included in burn units. If amendment 3 is not implemented, all significant, or 

potentially significant, inventoried sites within burn units, regardless of if they are considered 

“fire sensitive” or not, would be managed for “no effect.” 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 163

Amendment 1 (Kaibab NF): If amendment 1 is implemented, the same effects that are described 

above (amendment 2 for the Coconino NF) would apply to the 27,637 acres to be managed for an 

open reference condition. 

Amendment 2 (Kaibab NF): If amendment 2 is implemented, it would have minimal effect on 

the implementation of prescribed fire proposed under alternative B on the Kaibab NF because 

there would be only minor differences from current conditions. 

Alternative C

Amendment 1 (Coconino NF): If amendment 1 is implemented, the resulting decreases in 

canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and canopy cover would have the indirect effect of 

slightly decreasing crown fire potential for the 18 MSO PACs that would receive mechanical 

treatments. An additional indirect effect would be to increase the ability of fire managers to 

implement prescribed fire within PACs because of decreased potential fire behavior. If 

amendment 1 is not implemented on the Coconino NF, these 18 PACs (approximately 10,700 

acres) would retain the current forest structure that places them at high risk of high-severity fire. 

Potential fire behavior would make it difficult to implement prescribed fire because of narrow 

burn windows (weather and fuel conditions that would produce the desired fire effects and 

behavior). If prescribed fires were implemented on acres adjacent to PACs, it would be more 

likely that some fire lines would need to be created to avoid burning, producing ground 

disturbance that would be less likely under the proposed amendment. There would be little effect 

on emissions, except for a slight decrease in potential emissions in the event of wildfire following 

mechanical treatments within the PACs.

Amendment 2 (Coconino NF): If amendment 2 is implemented, it would allow 29,017 acres to 

be managed for an open reference condition. An indirect effect of managing for open conditions 

would be to have little potential for active crown fire, moving these acres toward desired 

conditions. Open conditions would, in the long run, produce fewer emissions because of less litter 

and debris from trees and the greater herbaceous component to surface fuels. If amendment 2 is 

not implemented on the Coconino NF, some treatments could be implemented, but these acres 

would not move as far toward desired conditions as they would be with the amendment. 

Amendment 3 (Coconino NF): If amendment 3 is implemented, it would allow fire to be used to 

meet objectives if it was determined to be the best tool. Additionally, it would allow all 

significant, or potentially significant inventoried sites that are not considered “fire sensitive” to be 

included in burn units. If amendment 3 is not implemented, all significant, or potentially 

significant, inventoried sites within burn units, regardless of if they are considered “fire sensitive” 

or not, would be managed for “no effect.” 

Amendment 1 (Kaibab NF): If amendment 1 is implemented, the same effects that are described 

above (amendment 2 for the Coconino NF) would apply to the 27,675 acres to be managed for an 

open reference condition. 

Amendment 2 (Kaibab NF): If amendment 2 is implemented, there would be an additional 400 

acres of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments that would move those acres toward desired 

condition (over alternatives B and D), as well as allowing more flexibility for laying out burn 

units in adjacent areas. If amendment 2 is not implemented, some of those acres could be burned 

under “operational burn,” but most would not move as far, or at all, toward desired condition. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Amendment 3 (Kaibab NF): If amendment 3 is implemented, the effects would be minimal, 

because the biological opinion from the FWS is expected to differ only minimally from current 

direction. 

Alternative D

The effects would be the same as described for alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary includes the project area, the South Rim of Grand Canyon 

National Park, and an area approximately 15 miles south and west of the project area to 

encompass areas that could be affected by fire from prevailing winds. Because RU 6 (Tusayan 

district) is removed from the main project area, the cumulative effects analysis includes projects 

and events that specifically affect (or have affected) RU 6 and projects and events that affect (or 

have affected) the remainder of the project area.

The timeframe considered for past projects is 2000 to 2010. Foreseeable projects extend 

approximately 10 years into the future. This timeframe accounts for when the majority of actions 

were or will be completed and for measuring fire effects from prescribed fire and the effects of 

treatment on potential wildfire behavior.

Past Projects and Natural Disturbances

Eight thinning and broadcast burn projects (2000 to 2010) totaling approximately 42,737 acres 

(completed near, adjacent to, or within) in RU 6 have affected potential fire behavior and effects 

in the treatment area. Some of the larger projects include Long Jim, Scott, Ten X, Topeka, and 

Tusayan East. See the fire ecology report for the complete list of projects by year and acres. 

Approximately 32,702 acres of wildfire occurred in or around RU 6 from 2000 to 2010. Some of 

the larger wildfires include Camp 36 (3,052 acres, 2003), Ruby (4,107 acres, 2009), and 

Mudersbach (7,260 acres, 2005). 

In the remainder of the cumulative effects analysis area, approximately 204,839 acres of 

mechanical treatment/prescribed fire, and 151,782 acres of wildfire from 2000 to 2010 have 

decreased the potential for active crown fire and crown fire initiation. Some of the larger wildfires 

include Wildhorse (13,790 acres, 2009) and Schultz (15,075, 2010). Some of the larger vegetation 

and prescribed fire projects include City (12,400 acres, 2005) and East Clear Creek (19,977 acres, 

2006). 

The combined effects of mechanical/prescribed fire treatments and wildfires have created a 

mosaic of stand conditions within the treatment (project) area and much of the cumulative effects 

boundary, decreasing the potential for undesirable fire behavior and effects. The scattered large 

blocks of treatments with decreased fire behavior potential would continue to contribute to this 

mosaic of stand conditions, resulting in a more fire-adapted landscape.

Current, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Actions

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable management activities including mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments would decrease the potential for crown fire by breaking up the vertical 

and horizontal continuity of canopy fuels. There are seven ongoing and foreseeable projects 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 165

within RU 6 that are likely to impact fire behavior and effects within the proposed treatment area. 

Some of the larger projects include Russell (8,000 acres, 2011) and Tusayan East (2,600 acres, 

2011). 

There are approximately 204,368 acres of mechanical treatments and 242,617 acres of prescribed 

fire ongoing or planned within the remainder of the analysis area in forested areas that could 

impact fire behavior and effects within the proposed treatment area (see fire ecology report).

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A

Alternative A would continue to maintain RU 6 with potential for high-severity fire effects. 

Alternative A would not contribute to improving the structure, composition, and patterns of the 

project area. It would not put the ponderosa pine forests—or the vegetative communities that are 

cohorts of ponderosa pine—on trajectories toward being resilient and sustainable. The treatment 

area would continue to become less adapted to fire, increasing the potential for undesirable fire 

behavior and effects when wildfires do occur. 

Cumulative Effects – Alternatives B, C, and D

Overall, the combined effects of current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable management 

activities would augment the effects of proposed treatments to decrease the potential size and 

severity of wildfires. These areas also may augment the potential size and increase the flexibility 

of locating burn units, because the moderated fire behavior in burned and/or thinned areas would 

allow prescribed fire to be implemented with broader burn windows and with higher intensity fire 

while still meeting control and resource objectives.

Treatments proposed in alternative B would move 509,195 more acres toward desired conditions 

for fire behavior and effects across the project area. When the proposed treatments are considered 

with past wildfires and past, current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable management activities, 

the effects would complement each other on large (project area), mid (RU), and small (subunit) 

scales, creating mosaics at all scales of potential fire behavior and effects, dominated by lowseverity fire. The proposed treatments would fill in most of the acres between past, current, 

ongoing, and foreseeable management activities, creating a more cohesive restored landscape 

across the project area. 

Treatments proposed in alternative C would move 562,380 more acres toward desired conditions 

for fire behavior and effects across the project area. Most of the effects would be identical to 

alternative B, with the exception of PACS and grasslands that would be treated, further 

augmenting the cumulative effects of the proposed actions and past wildfires, and past, current, 

ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable management activities.

Treatments proposed in alternative D would move 489,029 more acres toward desired conditions 

for fire behavior and effects across the project area. The proposed treatments would fill in most of 

the acres between past, current, ongoing, and foreseeable projects, creating a more cohesive 

restored landscape across the project area. Some 388,526 acres would not move as far toward 

desired conditions, and some areas would retain potential for crown fire and high severity surface 

fire as surface fuel loading increased following thinning, increasing the potential intensity of 

surface fires.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Air Quality

The air quality analysis is part of the fire ecology report which is incorporated by reference (Lata 

2013). This analysis addresses Issue 1, prescribed fire emissions. Smoke/emissions were 

evaluated quantitatively by modeled emission quantities in pounds per acre for the most common 

stand condition under different treatment scenarios. Additionally, changes in those fuel 

components which produce the greatest percentages of emissions when they burn (litter, duff, and 

CWD greater than 3 inches) were modeled and mapped for a qualitative assessment.

Emissions and Public Health

Air pollutants called particulate matter include dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets directly 

emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires, 

and natural windblown dust. The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants that pose health hazards: carbon monoxide (CO), 

lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter 

less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur dioxide. 

The pollutant form of greatest concern from wildland fire—including both prescribed fires and 

wildfires—is particulate matter (PM) (Ottmar 2001, Graham 2012), although fire also creates 

other criteria pollutants and visibility impacts. Studies of human populations exposed to high 

concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2

) and laboratory studies of animals 

and humans indicate there is potential for detrimental effects on human health. 

The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effect of particulate 

matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease of 

influenza, asthmatics, the elderly, and children. Particulate matter also soils and damages 

materials and is a major cause of visibility impairment.

Radioactive Emissions

Concerns have been raised about the potential for smoke from prescribed fire treatments proposed 

in 4FRI to contain radioactive substances. During the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000, there was 

considerable public concern regarding the potential release of radionuclides from the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL). The evidence suggests that some adverse health effects did result 

from breathing high concentrations of particulate matter in the smoke (NMED 2002). Such 

exposures are associated with any forest fire. Deposition of LANL derived chemicals and 

radioactive materials from the smoke plume to the soil was minimal (2002 LANL). 

Following the Cerro Grande Fire that burned the city of Los Alamos and the LANL in New 

Mexico in 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED), and LANL partnered with the Department of Energy to operate 

radiological monitoring systems as well as to initiate several studies to assess impacts of the fire. 

The results of these efforts with regard to air quality and human health impacts indicated that 

radionuclides originating from the LANL site during the Cerro Grande Fire were restricted to 

naturally occurring radionuclides. LANL, the Department of Energy, and NMED monitored 

radionuclide concentrations in smoke from the Las Conchas Fire that burned through the Los 

Alamos area in the summer of 2011 and reported no significant detection levels. (See the NMED 

Web site: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/WildfireSmokeResources).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 167

A study that included Lockett Meadow, within the 4FRI analysis area, found levels of radioactive 

materials in the soil were no different than background levels and would provide no added human 

health risk (Ketterer et al. 2004, Graham 2012a). 

Communication with the EPA (Gerdes 2012, Graham 2012) and studies that addressed these 

emissions (Schollnberger et al. 2002) indicate that radioactive isotopes and other undesirable 

chemicals are present in wildfire emissions. Some are naturally occurring chemicals that have 

always been present at some level in wildfire smoke, and some have resulted from the weapons 

testing that occurred in the mid-20th century. The level of smoke that the public is exposed to 

would not pose as great a risk as wildfire would. Radioactive material that may be carried in the 

smoke plume carries a risk of human health concerns of less than 1 chance in 10 million (NMED 

2002) and the greatest health risk is from breathing high concentrations of particulate matter in 

the smoke.

Smoke Sensitive Areas and Sensitive Receptors 

The “Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Arizona” defines “sensitive receptors” as 

“population centers such as towns and villages, campgrounds and trails, hospitals, nursing homes, 

schools, roads, airports, mandatory Class I Federal areas, etc. where smoke and air pollutants can 

adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare” (see appendix A of the specialist report). 

Several smoke sensitive areas lay within the airsheds of the areas proposed for treatment (table

62).

Table 62. Smoke sensitive areas and sensitive receptors

Area Proximity to 

Implementation Area Concerns

Flagstaff Within boundaries or directly 

adjacent in all directions

Hospital, schools, human habitation, visibility, 

young children, interstate visibility

Williams Within boundaries or directly 

adjacent in all directions

Hospital, schools, human habitation, visibility, 

young children, interstate visibility

Verde Valley Less than 10 miles downslope 

south and southwest. 

Hospital, schools, human habitation, visibility, 

young children

Grand Canyon 

National Park

Adjacent to the northern boundary 

of the 4FRI analysis area

Class I airshed, school, human habitation, 

campgrounds, visibility

The most sensitive smoke receptor in the State of Arizona is the Verde Valley, which is easily 

impacted with nuisance smoke from the cumulative burning on the southern part of the Kaibab 

NF, the eastern side of the Coconino NF, and the western side of the Prescott NF, as diurnal 

drainage of smoke from fires settles into this valley. Considerable coordination between forests 

takes place when burns and wildfires that can affect the Verde Valley take place, facilitated by the 

interagency Smoke Management Group housed at ADEQ. 

Smoke monitors in the Verde Valley (Sedona and Camp Verde) track emissions concentrations, as 

well as equipment that captures images of visibility conditions. Spikes are found in particulate 

matter concentrations as smoke from fire activity on the surrounding forests settles into the valley 

at night, although levels have not exceeded NAAQS thresholds in the Verde Valley. Many 

complaints of smoke impacts in the Sedona area are primarily concerned with the reduced quality 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

of highly valued scenic views of the Red Rocks. Table 63 lists most of the areas that are expected 

to be impacted to some degree by implementation of prescribed fires in the 4FRI treatment area. 

Figure 43 displays the general locations of airsheds that could be impacted by 4FRI actions. 

Airsheds 1, 3, and 5 are expected to experience the majority of the smoke impacts originating 

from the proposed treatment area, with rare instances of mild impacts in airshed 6. 

Table 63. Areas expected to be impacted by proposed prescribed fire treatments

Communities Roads Recreation Areas

Camp Verde Highway 180 Wupatki/Sunset Crater National Monuments

Cornville Lake Mary Road (County Road 209) Grand Canyon National Park

Cottonwood Interstate 17

Flagstaff County Road 65

Highway 89A

Interstate 40

Figure 43. Airsheds defined by the Arizona Department of Environment Quality
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 169

Baseline visibility conditions (table 64) have been established for Grand Canyon National Park 

and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness which are the two Class I areas potentially affected by 

activities and wildfires in the 4FRI implementation area. Visibility in the Class I area of 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness can also be affected by smoke from fires in the southeast portion of 

the Kaibab NF. The Forest Service is required to adhere to requirements in the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan to meet natural condition visibility goals. 

Table 64. Baseline and 2064 goal in 2003 Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

natural conditions

Class I Area Baseline Data Years Baseline 

Conditions

2064 Goal in 2003 AZ 

SIP

Grand Canyon NP 1999–2000, 2002–2004 11.6 dv 6.95 dv

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 2001–2004 15.2 dv 6.96 dv

Regulatory Requirements

Prescribed fire is implemented only with approved site specific burn plans and with smoke 

management mitigation and approvals. All burning is conducted according to ADEQ standards 

and regulations. These standards include the legal limits to smoke emissions from prescribed 

burns as imposed by Federal and State law. The ADEQ enforces these laws by regulating the 

acres that are treated based on expected air impacts. These regulations ensure that effects from all 

burning meet Clean Air Act requirements. Prescribed fires are initiated under conditions that 

allow managers to meet both control objectives (fire behavior) and resource objectives (fire 

effects, including air quality impacts).

Kaibab NF and Coconino NF Prescribed Fire

The Kaibab NF has burned approximately 8,000 acres per year with prescribed fire in ponderosa 

pine since 2000. When wildfire acres are added, the Kaibab NF averaged approximately 17,000 

acres a year (in ponderosa pine) from 2001 through fall of 2010. 

From 2001 through fall of 2010, the Coconino NF averaged a little over 13,000 acres of 

prescribed fire in ponderosa pine. When wildfire acres are added, the Coconino averaged 

approximately 20,000 acres in ponderosa pine for that same period. No notice of violation of 

NAAQS has ever been issued to the Kaibab NF. Over the same period of time, one exceedance 

occurred on the Coconino NF. It occurred on one monitor for 1 day for an exceedance in PM10 in 

Flagstaff in 2007. 

Environmental Consequences

Throughout this section, changes directly attributable to proposed actions, such as thinning or 

prescribed fire, are direct effects. These include changes to canopy bulk density, canopy base 

height, consumption of surface fuel, etc. Changes to the potential behavior and effects of 

wildfires that result from the direct effects are considered indirect effects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative A

In the short term (less than 20 years), effects of alternative A would include an increased risk of

undesirable behavior and effects from wildfires (see “Fire Ecology” section). Average annual 

acres burned with wildfire would increase, along with the acres burned with high-severity fire and 

the associated air quality impacts. In the long term, if the current average annual acres burned by 

wildfire remained the same, it is likely that the entire treatment area would burn with wildfire by 

2050, along with the associated air quality impacts. In the absence of wildfire, air quality would 

remain at current levels.

Environmental Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

• Implementing prescribed fire as proposed would result in lower emissions than if the area 

burned in a wildfire because there would be less biomass to burn.

• Prescribed fires implemented for the projects listed would comply with the regulations 

and requirements of the ADEQ and any burning done in the proposed treatment areas 

would comply with the NAAQS. 

• Air quality impacts would be most likely to those portions of the Little Colorado River 

Airshed east and northeast of Flagstaff; the Colorado River Airshed north of Williams and 

including all of the treatment area in RU 6; and the Verde River Airshed. There would be 

a small chance that there could be some impact to the northern portions of the Lower Salt 

River Airshed. 

• When units are ignited, smoke would be expected to travel on prevailing winds, away 

from sensitive receptors, and dissipate. Most smoke would dissipate, but some may 

persist at the surface. Short-term nighttime smoke could settle down the drainages into 

the towns below, particularly during early morning hours. Nighttime smoke would be 

expected to reside in low areas downslope from the burn units, because nighttime winds 

are generally calm. Daytime smoke would be expected to dissipate mostly downwind 

from the burn unit. Burn plans written for implementation of the proposed prescribed 

fires would include modeling to determine the most appropriate conditions under which 

to burn in order to minimize smoke impacts. 

• In the short term, as first entry burns are implemented, impacts would increase 

noticeably. Acres with high fuel loading would be burned, in a first step toward restoring 

the natural fire regime. In subsequent entries, the same acres would produce less smoke, 

along with maintaining an ecosystem that is resilient to fire and benefits from it. In the 

long term, once an area has been burned once, there would be less fuel and, thus, lower 

emission potential. The combination of lower fuel loads and larger burn units would 

allow more acres to be burned without exceeding NAAQS. 

Alternative B

Under this alternative, prescribed fire would be implemented on up to 58,792 acres annually to 

produce an average fire return interval of 10 years across 584,924 acres proposed for prescribed 

fire. Initial entry burns would produce much more emissions per acre than subsequent burns (see 

discussion on page 159 to page 161 in the fire report). However, even if the slash was removed 

from the forest and although the prescribed fires would be spread over many years, the acres to be 

burned would increase significantly and maintenance burning would be required across the 

treatment area to maintain a low fuel load and a healthy forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 171

Smoke impacts may increase under this alternative because both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

already burn almost as much as they can (given burn windows and other limitations on prescribed 

burning, including emissions). Under alternative B, the number of acres available for prescribed 

fire would increase by 584,924 acres, which would average an additional 58,792 acres a year. 

This, in turn, would increase the flexibility for the forests in laying out burn units and managing 

prescribed fires. With potential for larger burn units, it would be possible to burn “hotter,” so that, 

although more acres may be burned at one time, the heat created by increased fire behavior could 

provide more “lift” for the smoke, increasing dispersal and minimizing smoke impacts. 

Alternative C

Under this alternative, an average of 59,321 acres would need to receive prescribed fire every 

year. The effects (indirect) would be almost identical to those in alternative B, with the exceptions 

being the additional acres of MSO habitat and grasslands proposed for burning. Most acres in 

PACs and nest cores would be first entry burns that would initially produce a greater volume of 

smoke. However, surface fuel loads would not be burned in one entry; therefore, smoke would be 

dispersed over time. In the long term, the alternative would minimize wildfire emissions and 

effects and allow prescribed fire to be used in the future with lower emissions. 

Alternative D

Alternative D proposes to treat 388,526 with mechanical thinning treatments only. Approximately 

17,875 acres would need to burn each year to meet a 10-year fire return interval. At some point, 

these acres (as with most acres within the treatment areas) are likely to burn with wildfire. Under 

those circumstances, there would be little warning, little control over the smoke, and a great deal 

more smoke than if prescribed fire was used.

Alternative D proposes to thin but not burn 70 percent of the treatment area. Approximately 

388,526 acres would produce emissions as displayed in figure 44 in the column labeled “only 

mech” (refers to mechanical) treatment before wildfire and 178,753 (burn only) acres would 

produce emissions displayed in the column labeled “wildfire after burn only treatments.”

Forest Plan Amendments

See “Fire Ecology Environmental Consequences” section. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 44. Emissions from surface fuels burning in wildfires after various treatments

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of prescribed fires on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs over the 

last 12 years has resulted in one exceedance of NAAQS on one monitor for 1 day for PM10 in 

Flagstaff in 2007. Past treatments and wildfires in the last 10 years have decreased the potential 

emissions by removing canopy fuels, mostly from thinning on approximately 63,000 acres, and 

by increasing canopy base height, from wildfire and prescribed fire. Low-severity fire would have 

consumed surface fuels, further decreasing potential for emissions on approximately 151,000 

acres. In some areas of high-severity fire, canopy fuels were consumed leaving tree stems and 

branches which have the potential to smolder for days or weeks (see “Fire Ecology” section for 

complete list of projects considered for cumulative effects).

There are approximately 18,436 acres of prescribed burns planned in RU 6 and Grand Canyon 

National Park by 2020. The Colorado River Airshed and the Little Colorado River Airshed have 

potential for air quality impacts from fires occurring within RU 6 and Grand Canyon National 

Park. It is likely that similar burn windows will be needed for many of the fires in the park and 

parts of RU 6. 

The emissions from 244,000 acres of prescribed fire in the remainder of the analysis area would 

be managed in compliance with regulations and requirements of the ADEQ. There would be 

potential for air quality impacts to the Peaks and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness areas. The 

Colorado River Airshed, the Little Colorado River Airshed, and the Verde River Airshed are 

likely to have some air quality impacts from fires occurring in the southern part of the analysis 

area.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

EC wildfire, no trtmt Wildfire after burn

only treatments

Only mech

treatment before

wildfire

Wildfire after mech

+ burn treatments

pounds/acre

SO2 NOX

CO2 CO

CH4 PM 2.5

PM 10
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 173

Alternative A

Air quality would be unaffected by prescribed fire from the treatment area, but would be affected 

by prescribed fires from other projects as noted above. Emissions from 244,000 acres of 

prescribed fire from current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be managed in 

compliance with regulations and requirements of the ADEQ. As with prescribed fires, wildfires 

occurring in the untreated areas would produce more emissions in areas that were not treated and 

could augment the effects of prescribed fires on air quality. Areas with potential for impact would 

be the Colorado River Airshed, the Little Colorado River Watershed, and the Verde River 

Watershed. Class 1 airsheds that could be affected include Grand Canyon National Park and 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.

Alternatives B and C

All prescribed fires would be implemented in compliance with ADEQ regulations and 

requirements as well as forest plan direction to meet legal standards and provide for public safety. 

Emissions from prescribed fires proposed in alternatives B and C would utilize many of the same 

burn windows that the approximately 244,000 acres of current, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects would use. However, the increased acres of prescribed fire would allow more 

flexibility for implementation, making it possible to burn more acres at once with the same 

impacts. Areas with potential for impact would be the Colorado River Airshed, the Little 

Colorado River Watershed, and the Verde River Watershed. Class 1 airsheds that could be 

affected include Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. As more acres 

are treated, there will be broader burn windows, potentially resulting in more days of prescribed 

fire and days of air quality impacts. 

Alternative D

RU 6 is adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park, a Class 1 airshed and one of the most heavily 

visited national parks in the United States. Burn windows for the burns proposed in the action 

alternatives would be the similar to those for the current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions.

The potential for undesirable air quality impacts from prescribed fire would be the same as other 

alternatives because all prescribed fires are regulated by the same laws regarding allowed 

emissions. Areas with potential for impact would be the Colorado River Airshed, the Little 

Colorado River Watershed, and the Verde River Watershed. Class 1 airsheds that could be 

affected include Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. In most of the 

area that was thinned and not burned (388,526 acres), there would be potential for greater wildfire 

emissions from increased surface fuel loading. When combined with emissions from current, 

ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable management actions, there would be potential for greater air 

quality impacts when wildfires burned in these areas than in areas that had been previously 

treated with low-severity fire.

Terrestrial and Semiaquatic Wildlife and Plants

This section includes key effects and conclusions for terrestrial, semiaquatic, and plant 

threatened, endangered, and proposed species and critical habitat listed under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, Forest Service Southwestern Region Sensitive Species, forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

management indicator species, and migratory birds. The wildlife (Noble et al. 2013) and botany 

report (Crisp 2013) are incorporated by reference. Aquatic species were analyzed separately.

See the specialist reports (project record) for detailed information on methodology, analysis 

assumptions, best available science and data, habitats, populations, and effects that are not 

repeated in this section.

Vegetation Cover Types and Habitat Stratification

The dominant cover types within the project area are described in the “Vegetation” section. All 

ponderosa pine forested habitat within the project area was stratified to meet analysis 

requirements in the forest plans (USDA 1987, 1988) for Mexican spotted owl (MSO) and 

northern goshawk.

Wildlife Habitat Condition in the Project Area

Forest structure, forest health, vegetation composition and diversity, and fire behavior are highly 

departed from desired conditions. Chapter 1 of the DEIS describes how existing conditions are 

affecting wildlife habitat and function. 

Habitat Connectivity

Current forest structure is much denser in terms of trees per acre and canopy continuity than presettlement conditions for ponderosa pine in northern Arizona. Concern was expressed by the 

public that the scale and intensity of vegetation treatments would affect the connectivity of 

species that require closed canopy conditions. Chapter 1 of the DEIS provides the existing 

condition of canopy openness. The “Vegetation” section in this chapter evaluates how each 

alternative would affect canopy density and openness. 

Using the post-treatment vegetation modeling output and extensive list of design features that 

would be incorporated into project implementation, the wildlife analysis evaluated potential 

impacts to habitats. In summary, the evaluation found that adequate areas of densely forested 

habitat would remain available to wildlife adapted to closed canopy conditions during the period 

of time between 4FRI treatments and the actual attainment of desired conditions across the 

broader landscape. This habitat would bridge the time between treatment and attaining truly 

sustainable forest conditions, allowing species adapted to closed canopies to adjust, adapt, or 

eventually relocate over time rather than face an abrupt transition in forest conditions. This bridge 

habitat would include about 13 percent of the landscape within the 4FRI project boundary that 

would be deferred from treatment. Nearly 42 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area would 

have a moderately closed canopy and 17 percent would remain in a closed condition. Another 17 

percent of the treated area would have a mix of open and closed conditions. Restoration units near 

the Mogollon Rim would provide the greatest percentage of bridge habitat after treatment. In 

addition, landscape-scaled corridors would be designated to account for movement of closed 

canopy species across the area. The complete analysis for bridge habitat for canopy-dependent 

wildlife can be found in appendix G of the DEIS and appendix 3 of the wildlife report. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 175

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed Candidate Species, and Designated 

Critical Habitat, and Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The following list of federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species was adopted from 

the Coconino and Kaibab NFs’ lists of species. Only those federally listed threatened, 

endangered, candidate species and their critical habitat, along with Forest Service sensitive 

species that are known or have potential to occur within the 4FRI project area were analyzed

(table 65). Table 66 lists species that are not present or do not have potential habitat in the project 

area and were, therefore, dismissed from further analysis.

Table 65. Threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species evaluated in this 

analysis

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Amphibians (1)

Lithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Frog S 

Birds (7) 

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican Spotted Owl and critical habitat T 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S 

Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk S/MIS/Mig Bird1

Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon S 

Aechmophorus clarkia Clark’s Grebe S 

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing Owl (western) S/Mig Bird

Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk S/Mig Bird

Insects (3)

Piruna polingii Four-spotted Skipperling S 

Speyeria nokomis nitocris Nitocris Fritillary S 

Speyeria nokomis Nokomis Nokomis Fritillary S 

Mammals (10) 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret E 

Microtus mogollonensis Navaho Navajo Mogollon Vole S 

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed Vole S 

Sorex merriami leucogengys Merriam’s shrew S 

Sorex nanus Dwarf Shrew S 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western Red Bat S 

Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat S 

Idionycteris phyllotis Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat S 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat S 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Mastiff Bat S 

Reptiles (1)

Thamnophis rufipunctatus Narrow-headed Garter Snake S 

Plants (9) 

Cimicifuga arizonica Arizona bugbane S 

Astragalus rusbyi Rusby milkvetch S 

Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima Arizona leatherflower S 

Hedeoma diffusum Flagstaff pennyroyal S 

Helenium arizonicum Arizona sneezeweed S 

Penstemon clutei Sunset Crater beardtongue S 

Penstemon nudiflorus Flagstaff beardtongue S 

Rumex orthoneurus Blumer’s dock S 

Salix bebbiana Bebb’s willow S 

Status: E = Federally Endangered; T = Federally Threatened; C = Federal Candidate; S = Forest Service Sensitive; Mig 

Birds = Migratory Birds 1 Analyses for MIS and migratory birds can be found below. 2 Note that MSO are analyzed as a threatened species under the ESA. 

Table 66. Threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species not addressed in this 

analysis

Scientific Name Common Name Rationale Status

Amphibians (3)

Lithobates chiracahuensis Chiricahua leopard frog Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

T 

Bufo microscaphus 

microscaphus

Southwestern (Arizona) 

toad

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Lithobates yavapaiensis Lowland leopard frog Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Birds (6) 

Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

E 

Gymnogyps californianus California condor Not known to occur in project area 

(random occurrence may happen)

E/ExpNonE

Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis

Yuma clapper rail Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

E 

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

C 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 177

Scientific Name Common Name Rationale Status

Buteogallus anthracinus Common black hawk Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Pipila aberti Abert’s towhee Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Mammals (2) 

Perognathus amplus cineris Wupatki Arizona pocket 

mouse

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Reithrodontomys montanus Plains harvest mouse Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Reptiles (2)

Thamnophis eques 

megalops

Northern Mexican garter 

snake

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

C 

Heloderma suspectum 

suspectum

Reticulate Gila monster Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Plants (19)

Packera franciscana

(Senecio fransciscanus

San Francisco Peaks 

ragwort 

Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

T 

Purshia subintegra Arizona cliffrose Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

E 

Agave delamateri Tonto Basin agave Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Agave phillipsiana Grand Canyon agave Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Arenaria aberrans Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area 

S 

Botrychium crenulatum Crenulate moonwort Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Carex ultra Cochise sedge Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Chrysothamnus molestus Disturbed rabbitbrush Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Cirsium parryi ssp.

mogollonicum

Mogollon thistle Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Desmodium metcalfei Metcalf’s tick trefoil Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Erigeron saxatilis Cliff fleabane Habitat for this species is on steep 

canyon walls and is not likely to be 

affected by management actions 

including burning.

S 

Eriogonum ericifolium var. 

ericifolium

Heathleaf wild buckwheat Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Scientific Name Common Name Rationale Status

Eriogonum ripleyi Ripley wild buckwheat Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Helianthus arizonensis Arizona sunflower Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Heuchera eastwoodiae Eastwood alum root Species is not known to occur in the 

analysis area

S 

Pellaea lyngholmii Lyngholm’s brakefern Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

,Platanthera zothecina Alcove bog orchid Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Polygala rusbyi Hualapai milkwort Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Salvia dorrii ssp. mearnsii Verde Valley sage Neither the species nor its habitat 

occurs in the project area

S 

Status: E = Federally Endangered; T = Federally Threatened; C = Federal Candidate; S = Forest Service Sensitive; 

E/Exp-NonE = Experimental nonessential

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

All ponderosa pine/Gambel oak forest habitat within the project area was stratified by MSO 

habitat potential to meet analysis requirements in the forest plans (USDA 1987, 1988). See the 

preceding “Vegetation” section for a description of the stratification. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the project area is the larger 988,764-acre unit and the ponderosa pine treatment area is 

512,178 acres. 

There are 99 protected activity centers (PACs) within the project area. The project area includes 

all State, private, and Federal lands as well as designated wilderness, current and recent project

areas on the individual ranger districts, and mixed conifer vegetation. The treatment area contains 

about 36,455 acres of MSO protected habitat of which 35,566 acres are within 72 designated 

PACs that are considered occupied. The remaining protected habitat (889 acres) occurs on steep 

slopes where timber harvest has not occurred in the previous 20 years. There are about 76,091 

acres of restricted habitat, including 8,713 acres of threshold and target habitat. For the purpose of 

the MSO discussion, the treatment area includes only those ponderosa pine lands managed by the 

FS which are proposed for mechanical and/or prescribed fire activities.

Six critical habitat units (CHUs) occur partially or completely within the 4FRI project area (see 

the wildlife specialist report for approximate locations and descriptions. Figure 45 displays all

MSO habitat within the 4FRI treatment area.

Surveys and Monitoring

Annual MSO monitoring on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs is highly variable. Some PACs are 

rarely monitored while others are monitored nearly every year. Monitoring summaries for each 

forest from 1987 to 2011 are presented in the wildlife report.

 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 179

Figure 45. Mexican spotted owl habitat within the 4FRI treatment area

Summary of Habitat Conditions

All MSO habitats are at risk from stand density-related mortality. There is an imbalance in tree 

size classes leading to a lack of diversity in tree ages and structural diversity. There is a deficit of 

large trees (greater than 18-inch d.b.h.)—particularly trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h.—and there 

are threats to existing big and old trees because of competition from smaller trees. Large snags 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

are also deficit when compared to forest plan and MSO recovery plan desired conditions10. Snags 

and CWD requirements are met on less than 10 percent of the habitat (see chapter 1, table 7). 

Canopy cover in habitat selected by MSOs is higher than average forest values and can range 

from 50 percent to greater than 80 percent (USDI 1995). There is decreased quality in prey 

habitat due in part to uncharacteristic canopy connectivity from ingrowth of smaller trees 

inhibiting herbaceous understory development. 

The existing condition for surface fuels within the 4FRI treatment area is directly related to forest 

density. As a result, MSO habitat also has a higher fuel buildup at ground level. According to fire 

modeling, about half of the total MSO habitat in the treatment area would support some form of 

crown fire with nearly a third of MSO habitat (33,549 acres) at risk of active crown fire (table 

67). Although the desired condition is returning fire behavior to predominantly surface fire, 

current fuel loading presents threats to MSO prey habitat from both the risk of crown fire and 

uncharacteristic surface fire.

Table 67. Predicted fire behavior in existing MSO habitat

MSO 

Habitat 

Type

Habitat 

Acres

Surface Fire

Acres 

(% of Habitat)

Passive Crown 

Fire Acres 

(% of Habitat)

Active Crown 

Fire Acres

(% of Habitat)

Conditional 

Acres

(% of Habitat)

Protected 36,757 18,610

(51)

3,141

(9) 

9,930

(27)

14,847

(41)

Target/ 

Threshold

8,713 4,292

(49)

926

(11)

2,854

(33)

3,479

(40)

Restricted 67,378 35,465

(53)

6,608

(10)

20,764

(31)

25,187

(37)

MSO Habitat – Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects 

The vegetation analysis evaluates the effects to forest structure in MSO habitat including snags, 

down logs, and CWD. Overall, alternative A does not meet the purpose and need for the project. 

While individual projects would move some habitat toward desired conditions, MSO habitat at 

the 4FRI landscape level would continue to degrade over time in terms of forest structure and 

health. Development of the large tree component would continue to be compromised by density 

dependent competition and mortality. Tree growth rates would stagnate, compromising future 

recruitment into larger size classes. Understory development would remain suppressed and 

continue to decline.

Other habitats important to prey species such as meadows, aspen, springs, and ephemeral 

channels would continue to degrade or be lost entirely over the long term. Roads within the 4FRI 

that have been identified for closure under travel analysis process assessments would remain 

open, negatively impacting forest attributes important to MSO and allowing potential for 

disturbance to birds to remain. No 4FRI specific disturbance would occur but disturbance from 

other projects and from the existing road network would continue. MSO habitats would be on a 

 

10No specific desired conditions exist for snags in the 12-inch to 18-inch category in MSO habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 181

trajectory moving further from desired conditions as described in the Coconino and Kaibab forest 

plans.

Alternatives B, C, and D – Direct and Indirect Effects

The environmental consequences for alternatives B, C, and D reflect the incorporation of forest 

plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction. See 

the “Wildlife” portion of appendix C for design features and mitigation. Habitat elements used to 

evaluate the alternatives for MSO include: forest structure and density, MSO prey habitat, fire 

effects, other habitat changes, and disturbance.

• At the project area scale, improvements to prey habitat through spring, ephemeral 

channel, meadow, and aspen treatments within protected habitat would be limited and site 

specific. However, these treatments would enhance prey habitat in areas proximate to 

nesting owls where foraging is key during the reproductive season. MSOs in the UGM 

feed primarily on peromyscus mice and voles (Ganey et al. 2011), and restoration 

treatments could benefit these species by improving understory vigor and productivity 

(Kalies et al. 2012, Martin and Maron 2012). Analysis of adaptive management actions 

for springs and ephemeral channels indicated they would not result in additional effects 

which are not already disclosed/addressed in the individual alternative discussions.

• Overall changes to PAC habitat would be limited, but would focus on improving 

important structural elements like large tree development and retention, and reduced risk 

of high-severity fire. Treatments in restricted “other” habitat would provide diversity in 

habitat structure which would enhance prey populations and increase forest resiliency 

while providing for owl dispersal. 

• Fire and smoke effects from prescribed fire may disturb individual birds in and adjacent 

to the treatment area, but timing restrictions and low-severity burn prescriptions would 

reduce impacts and largely lead to no or only short-term effects. However, the amount of 

burning across the landscape under alternatives B, C, and D creates the potential of 

smoke settling into a PAC, potentially leading to adverse effects to individual owls. 

• Road maintenance, reconstruction, temporary road construction, and decommissioning

within PACs would all take place outside of the breeding season. Project activities would 

be phased to ensure that not all MSO habitats are treated simultaneously, thus reducing 

the overall effects by spreading them across a broad area and over time. Review of 

adaptive management actions for road-related activities indicated they would not result in 

additional effects that are not already disclosed/addressed in the individual alternative 

discussions.

Forest Structure in PACs

Forest structure, such as trees 18-inch d.b.h. and greater, describes nest and roost site 

characteristics. In alternatives B, C, and D changes in forest structure within PACs would be 

small and reflect the careful design of treatments to move forest structure toward desired 

conditions while retaining dense stands with closed canopies. Trees 12 to 18 inches d.b.h. 

decrease across all alternatives. These mid-aged trees are currently in abundance. The largest drop 

in the mid-aged size class would be in alternative C and would be consistent with the lower 

minimum basal area associated with the draft recovery plan guidance for nest/roost 

characteristics. Implementation of alternative C would require a forest plan amendment, see 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

appendix B. All alternatives would increase trees greater than 18 inches d.b.h. Results would be 

similar among alternatives, but alternative C would yield the largest increase in big trees. 

Increases in large trees would include trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. as well. Ponderosa pine 

basal area would decrease in all action alternatives, which is a treatment objective, with 

alternative C showing the largest decrease and alternative D the smallest decrease due to the lack 

of prescribed fire.

Forest Structure in Ponderosa Pine – Oak Restricted Habitat

Current forest plan and MSO recovery plan direction require that at least 10 percent of MSO 

restricted habitat be designated as threshold habitat. Threshold habitat represents forest structure 

simultaneously meeting nesting and roosting criteria. There is deficit in the amount of existing 

threshold stands across the landscape. No stands simultaneously meeting threshold conditions 

would be brought below minimum threshold values in any alternative. The recovery plan also 

defines target habitat as areas approaching, but not currently meeting, forest structure conditions 

described in table III.B.1 of the MSO recovery plan (USDI 1995: page 92). Target stands should 

be managed toward achieving nesting and roosting habitat. Treatments would decrease the 

percentage of trees less than 18 inchs d.b.h. and increase trees greater than 18 inches d.b.h. in all 

action alternatives.

Trees 12- to 18-inch d.b.h. would decrease and trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. would increase 

in all action alternatives. Changes in threshold habitat would be similar to those in PACs due to 

the limited scale of work being proposed. Target habitat would see more change, but typically this 

would be limited to a couple percentages per tree size class or a couple trees per acre 18-inch 

d.b.h. and larger; trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h. would consistently increase in all RUs. 

Changes in restricted “other” habitat would follow the same pattern with the scale of change 

being a few percentages or trees per acre.

All action alternatives would have the same mechanical treatments in restricted “other” habitat. 

Because alternative C would adopt a minimum basal area value of 110 as recommended in the 

MSO recovery plan, more trees in the 12- to 18-inch d.b.h. class would be cut. As a result, fewer 

trees would grow into the 18- to 23.9-inch d.b.h. category relative to alternatives B and D. 

Growth rates for trees 18- to 23.9-inch d.b.h. would increase in alternative C, moving more trees 

into the next size class of 24 inches and greater d.b.h. Therefore, alternative C would have fewer 

trees 18- to 23.9-inch d.b.h. but the most trees 24-inch d.b.h. and larger. Alternatives B and D

produced similar values for forest structure in restricted habitat. BA would be higher for both pine 

and oak under alternative D because of the limited use of fire in this alternative. 

Canopy Structure

Stand density index (SDI) is an important measure of forest density and can inform canopy 

structure. Percent maximum SDI in target and threshold habitat would range from the low to mid70s (“extremely high density”) in all action alternatives. Treatments in restricted “other” habitat 

would result in percent maximum SDI values in the upper 30s (“high density”) for alternatives B 

and C, and 46 in alternative D. Alternatives B and C would result in similar densities and 

alternative D had the highest densities in terms of percent maximum SDI. All values would result 

in forest conditions with closed canopies. Given post-treatment values for basal area and trees per 

acre by tree size class, canopy cover would be 50 percent or greater at the group level (see 

silviculture report for details).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 183

Only ponderosa pine would be harvested, so while individual trees of other species might be 

affected by mechanical and burning operations, the existing variability in overstory species would 

remain after treatments. Prescribed fire would improve subcanopy flight space for MSOs by 

lifting crown base height. Combined, these factors should improve the elements of canopy 

structure such as cover, density, flight space, and maintain species diversity in the overstory.

Prey Habitat

Prey habitat is another key component of MSO habitat. In threshold habitat, snags greater than 

18-inch d.b.h. would decrease by 0.1 to 0.2 snags per acre across all action alternatives, relative to 

alternative A. In target habitat, snags in alternative B would equal alternative A, snags in 

alternative C would decrease by 0.2 per acre and in alternative D snags would increase by 0.1 per 

acre. Snag values would be about equal across alternative in restricted “other” habitat. In both 

threshold and target habitats logs would decrease in all alternatives but still remain about double 

the forest plan guidelines. Logs would be similar across all alternatives in restricted “other” 

habitat, remaining at or above forest plan guidelines in each alternative. CWD would be at the 

upper end of forest plan guidance in threshold and target habitats for alternatives B and C, and 

exceed forest plan guidance in alternative D. Values for CWD in restricted “other” habitat would 

be within forest plan direction for alternatives B and C, and exceed recommended values in 

alternative D in three of four RUs. RU 5 would have lower amounts of CWD, with alternatives B 

and C below 4 tons per acre. Alternative D would have about 6.3 tons per acre in RU 5, the 

lowest average in any RU under alternative D. The limited number of acres proposed for burning 

in alternative D would result in the most prey structure remaining on the ground. In other words, 

without broadcast burning occurring across most restricted habitat, alternative D would retain the 

largest amount of surface fuels. However, this could decrease herbaceous response and not 

represent an actual improvement to prey habitat above the other alternatives while increasing the 

risk of a surface fire becoming a crown fire.

Understory response would be low in MSO habitat, reflecting the desired condition for relatively 

dense forests with closed canopies. The relative index for biomass response remained below 30 

pounds per acre in threshold habitat and below 70 pounds per acre in target habitat. Alternative C 

had the highest response and alternative D the lowest. Results for restricted “other” habitat were 

much higher, relative to areas managed for nesting and roosting habitat, with values generally 

ranging from 130 to 180 pounds per acre except for RU 5 where results for alternatives B and C 

were about 283 pounds per acre. Alternative D would again be consistently lower than 

alternatives B and C.

All action alternatives were more than three times the values for the no action alternative, 

reflecting the improvements to prey habitat the proposed treatments could achieve. However, the 

relative biomass response would be based largely on changes in basal area. It would not include 

broadcast burning benefits to understory plants such as reduced pine litter and associated nutrient 

pulse. Therefore, the advantages from implementing alternatives B and C are underrepresented 

when comparing results to treatments proposed under alternative D. 

Fire Effects

All three action alternatives would move large acreages of ponderosa pine forest out of FRCC 3 

immediately after treatments are completed. Alternative C moves all treated acres out of FRCC 3. 

Alternative B has the next fewest acres in FRCC 3 after treatment and alternative D has the most 

acres remaining in FRCC 3 of the action alternatives. In comparison, nearly 60 percent of total 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

acres would be in FRCC 3 under alternative A. Simultaneously, alternatives B and C would move 

nearly a fifth of total treated acres into FRCC 1. In 2020, alternative D would have fewer acres in 

FRCC 1 than the existing conditions. Moving the overall landscape toward FRCC 1 would 

decrease the risk of undesirable fire behavior and effects to MSO habitat.

Fire modeling resulted in similar patterns, in terms of meeting desired conditions, as that shown 

for FRCC. Patterns for changes in fire behavior in protected habitat are similar to those for 

ponderosa pine forest in general. Action alternatives would move most of the habitat into surface 

fire conditions in 2020. However, alternatives B and C would move most of the ponderosa pine 

and about three-quarters of MSO protected habitat into conditions likely to support surface fire. 

Alternative D would move most of the ponderosa pine but less than 60 percent of the protected 

habitat toward surface fires. The remaining acres would remain vulnerable to high-severity fire. It 

is worth noting that the wildlife analysis for the Kaibab forest plan concluded the Kendrick PAC 

consisted of mixed-conifer habitat. The Kaibab NF used a mid-scale analysis (100 to 1,000 acres) 

for evaluating effects of the proposed land management plan. The 4FRI analysis was analyzed on 

a finer scale that delineated individual pine-oak stands within the Kendrick PAC. About 173 acres 

of pine-oak habitat outside the core area were identified for burn-only treatment in the Kendrick 

PAC during the 4FRI analyses of potential PAC treatments. The nearby Stock Tank PAC, 

administered by the Coconino NF, has about 15 acres of pine-oak habitat occurring on the Kaibab 

NF that is also proposed for burn-only treatments. The 15 acres are within the PAC but outside of 

both the core area and Kendrick Peak Wilderness.

Disturbance

Disturbance could occur as a result of project-related activities including moving and operating 

harvest machinery, hauling forest materials, building fire line, managing prescribed burns, smoke, 

personnel in the field, and road maintenance and reconstruction. Noise disturbance from project 

activities may disturb foraging MSO. Noise would not be expected to disturb nesting or roosting 

MSO because haul routes are planned to either avoid PACs (occur more than a 1⁄4 mile from core 

areas) or employ timing restrictions to avoid disturbance during the nesting season. Alternatives B 

and D would mechanically treat 84,177 acres of MSO habitat. Alternative C would mechanically 

treat 82,344 acres of MSO habitat; about 1,833 acres less than alternative B or D.

Core areas would be protected from prescribed fire by using roads, natural barriers, or new fire 

line to contain burn units. Building line would occur outside the nesting season. Noise and smoke 

related to burning could disturb owls. Design features would include timing restrictions so that 

habitat in and around PACs would not be prescribed burned during the breeding season (March 1 

to August 31). The area excluded from burning around PACs would be determined on a PAC-byPAC basis. Roads, topography, and prevailing weather patterns would be identified so that an 

adequate buffer would be defined around PACs. Burning within the buffer would be conducted in 

association with PAC burning outside the breeding season. This would include core areas in 

alternative C. Site-specific buffers would be designed so that noise and settling smoke from 

burning outside the buffer would not disturb resident owls in the PACs during the breeding 

season. Appropriate distances for individual PACs would be decided by biologists, fuels 

specialists, and the FWS. As a result, smoke and noise are not expected to result in negative 

effects to MSO. Alternative B would treat 107,696 acres with prescribed fire, alternative C would 

treat 112,546 acres of MSO habitat, and alternative D would prescribe burn 3,543 acres of MSO 

habitat. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 185

Other Features within MSO Habitat

Roads 

About 164 miles of road (table 68) are proposed for decommissioning within MSO habitat (17 

percent of the 962 total open roads in MSO habitat) in each action alternative. Roads proposed for 

decommissioning by MSO habitat type and total miles of proposed road decommissioning are the 

same in each alternative. About 15 percent of the 793 miles of road within MSO critical habitat is 

proposed for decommissioning. Road decommissioning within MSO habitat would improve 

habitat conditions for MSOs and their prey. 

Table 68. Alternatives B, C, and D miles of road decommissioning in all MSO habitat

MSO Habitat

Miles of Roads 

Proposed for 

Decommissioning

Existing Road 

Miles

Percent of Roads 

Proposed for 

Decommissioning

Protected 49 251 20

Core Area1 5 20 20

Target/Threshold 17 82 21

Restricted Other 98 624 16

Total 164 957 17

1 Core area acres are a subset of protected habitat totals

Road maintenance (nearly 98 miles) and temporary road construction (about 7 miles) would 

affect almost 105 miles of roads in protected habitat (table 69). Road maintenance and temporary 

road construction within PACs would take place outside of the breeding season. The term 

“temporary roads” in this instance includes nonsystem roads that currently function as open roads 

on the landscape. These roads would also be decommissioned outside of the breeding season after 

4FRI project implementation.

A road system for hauling harvested materials out of the forest was identified to implement 

restoration activities. Haul routes were evaluated across the entire project area relative to MSO 

PAC habitat. This broad-scale effort was evaluated in a site-specific manner as roads around each 

individual PAC were examined in terms of functional haul routes and avoiding disturbance to 

MSOs. The objective was to assess road systems for hauling materials with the goal of avoiding 

or minimizing impacts to MSOs. The miles associated with road maintenance, construction, and 

reconstruction are the same in alternatives B, C, and D. 

Dust abatement treatments would occur in selected areas where private landownership concerns 

could arise. Eight road segments have been identified for dust abatement, totaling less than 7 

miles in length. The average dust abatement treatment length would be about 0.9 miles, ranging 

from 0.3 to 2.5 miles. Treatments would consist of magnesium chloride (MgCl2) or lignin. The 

effectiveness of MgCl2 is related to humidity levels (Batista et al. 2004); therefore, lignin would 

probably be used most often in the 4FRI landscape. Treatments would be temporary and only 

occur on particular road segments in association with hauling. None of the proposed treatment 

segments would be near open water. Because of the limited application spatially and temporally, 

and because locations do not include sensitive areas such as open water, dust abatement is not 

expected to result in measurable effects to wildlife or their habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 69. Alternatives B, C, and D road maintenance, temporary roads, and reconstruction 

in MSO habitat in miles

MSO Habitat Road 

Maintenance

Temporary 

Road 

Construction

Road 

Reconstruction

Total Miles of 

Road Work

Protected Total 97.6 7.2 0 104.8 

Target/Threshold Total 40.9 5.3 ≤0.05 46.3 

Restricted 319.1 63.5 1.0 383.6

Total 457.6 76.0 1.05 534.7

About 115 miles of roads in restricted habitat (table 68) would be decommissioned across 15 

different subunits, including nearly 17 miles within target and threshold habitat. About 458 miles 

of road maintenance would occur in MSO habitat. New temporary road construction would total 

about 76 miles (table 69). Over a mile of road would be relocated to protect ephemeral stream 

channels. Two road segments would be relocated in target (1) and threshold (1) habitat, totaling 

less than 0.04 mile in length and the balance would be in restricted “other” habitat. No road 

relocation would occur in protected habitat. 

Springs, Ephemeral Channels, Meadows, and Aspen

Spring and ephemeral stream restoration activities would be the same in all action alternatives. 

Restoration of springs and ephemeral channels would be evidence based and designed to improve 

vegetation composition. Pre-settlement trees would remain where present and the largest trees 

available would be left where there is evidence of other pre-settlement trees. Twenty-three springs 

are in MSO habitat, including protected (5) and restricted (18) habitats. Over 4 miles of 

ephemeral stream channel restoration is proposed within MSO habitat. Spring and channel 

restoration would occur in four of the six CHUs occurring within the treatment area, enhancing 

prey habitat. Restoration activities proposed for springs and ephemeral channels would include 

two prescribed fires in a 10-year period: first entry and second entry maintenance prescribed fires. 

The wildlife report contains additional information on the location of springs and streams within 

MSO habitat.

Up to 135 acres of meadow treatments are proposed in 12 different PACs, depending on the 

alternative. Meadow treatments within PACs are intended to improve existing meadow habitat by 

removing encroaching conifers. Meadow habitat within PACs is important because it represents 

important prey habitat. Meadow treatments average 11 acres per PAC, ranging from 1 acre 

(Howard Mountain) to 28 acres (Meadow Tank). Treatment types vary by alternative and all 

PACs with proposed meadow treatments are located on the Coconino NF. Mechanical treatments 

would remove post-settlement trees, unless replacement trees would be necessary for evidence of 

pre-settlement trees. Meadow treatment objectives related to prescribed fire include 

removal/reduction in litter, raising a stand’s crown base height, or deliberate tree mortality 

intended to restore the function of the habitat.

Approximately 1,471 acres of aspen, another important habitat for MSO prey, occur in the 

treatment area. Aspen treatments vary by alternative. Up to 209 acres of aspen are proposed for 

treatment in PAC habitat and up to 959 acres are proposed for treatment within critical habitat 

(UGM-11, UGM-13, UGM-14, UGM-15, and UGM-17). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 187

Forest Plan Amendments

The MSO amendments are designed to allow treatments that were developed to create and sustain 

nesting and roosting habitat. If the amendments were not included as part of this alternative, the 

results of implementing the alternatives would be different from those analyzed below. By 

adhering to a 9-inch d.b.h. limit for cutting trees within PACs, about two-thirds of the PAC acres 

proposed for mechanical treatment would retain uncharacteristic basal areas and ladder fuels, and 

no fuels reduction would occur in 56 core areas. The result would be a higher risk of potential 

crown fire, elevated rates of density dependent tree mortality, and increasing the risk of overstory 

mortality from insects and disease. Post-treatment PAC habitat conditions would continue to limit 

the ability to retain large pine and oak trees and slow the development of future large trees and 

snags. Large pine and oak trees and snags are key components of nesting and roosting habitat. 

Restricting PAC treatments to 10 percent of the recovery unit would continue the risk of habitat 

loss for an extended period of time. 

Not designating 10 percent of restricted habitat as threshold habitat on the Kaibab NF would not 

be expected to affect MSOs (see following analysis). Similarly, designating 10 percent of 

restricted habitat as threshold habitat would also not be expected to affect MSOs. Habitat use by 

MSOs across the Williams Ranger District is in mixed conifer forest on top of the mountainous 

cinder cones or in Sycamore Canyon. If MSO use of this habitat occurs, it is likely for foraging or 

dispersal. Managing for an extra 2 percent of nesting and roosting habitat would not likely affect 

either behavior. However, maintaining high tree densities in areas that historically did not likely 

have the canopy closure and stem densities associated with owl nesting and roosting habitat 

would negatively affect other wildlife species (see amendment analyses for sensitive, 

management indicator, and migratory bird species). Similarly, managing future nesting and 

roosting habitat with a lower minimum basal area value, as described in the MSO recovery plan, 

would not likely affect MSOs in the short term. By definition, these are areas with no known 

resident owls. However, these minimum values represent stand or area averages, with groups of 

trees creating higher and lower values. Managing future nesting and roosting habitat at the higher 

basal area values may decrease the ability to maintain these areas in the long term due to the risk 

of potential crown fire and insect and disease related mortality.

The amendments proposed for managing canopy cover and open reference conditions in goshawk 

habitat (Coconino and Kaibab NFs), management in the proposed Garland Prairie RNA (Kaibab 

NF), and cultural resource determinations (Coconino NF) would not affect MSOs or their habitat.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

The complete analysis for cumulative effects to MSOs is discussed in detail in the wildlife 

specialist report. Cumulative effects were evaluated across the 4FRI treatment area plus a 1⁄2-mile 

buffer beyond. The cumulative effects area includes 110 PACs. Effects from recent/past projects 

(since 1996) are assumed to potentially contribute to short-term effects in association with 4FRI 

treatments which would extend through the year 2020. Current and ongoing projects could 

potentially contribute to long-term effects (considered 30 years post-treatment or the year 2050). 

Projects before 1996 are incorporated into existing conditions. Aspects of existing conditions that 

are a result of these early projects include a deficit in large trees and snags and even-aged 

conditions. Pre-1996 projects also had heavy selection pressure for preferred tree genetics to 

provide healthy trees with good form. Wildlife habitat in the form of nesting, feeding, and loafing 

sites was reduced by selecting for disease-free trees with symmetric shapes, eliminating forktop 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

trees, trees with unusual branching patterns, and replanting with selected genetic stock from 

nurseries.

Current and ongoing projects identified in MSO habitat within the 4FRI area have or will treat a 

total of about 6,500 acres. This equates to nearly 3,000 acres of protected habitat and about 3,500 

acres of restricted habitat. Most acres treated from these projects involve mechanical harvest or 

burning treatments, but also include slash disposal, invasive weed treatments, and limited acres of

animal damage control, erosion control, and disease tree harvest (see appendix 12 of the wildlife 

report).

Most of the habitat identified as part of the ongoing and foreseeable cumulative effects analysis 

would occur outside of MSO habitat. However, there are treatments specifically designed to treat 

MSO habitat. Total acres of MSO habitat treatment is not yet known because some projects are 

still in the planning and analysis stages. However, the best estimate at this time includes about 

10,155 acres of protected habitat and approximately 23,800 acres of restricted habitat under 

consideration for vegetation treatments. 

Alternative A

Maintaining existing conditions would extend the current deficit of trees greater than 24-inch 

d.b.h. Growth could be further suppressed and mortality rates increased if long-term climate 

patterns continue toward hotter and drier growing conditions. Within-stand mortality resulting 

from competition for rooting space, water, and nutrient availability could lead to patches of more 

open conditions. This could reduce potential nesting and roosting habitat even in locations where 

individual trees might eventually grow into larger size classes.

Pine-oak habitat would remain outside the historical range of variability in terms of tree densities 

and age class distribution under alternative A. Loss of large diameter oak would continue, as 

would the suppression of young oak by competing pine trees. Large-scale stochastic events could 

continue to slow or prevent development of new MSO nesting and roosting habitat. 

The lack of road closures along with firewood cutting, would maintain the same threat to large 

snag persistence. Ecosystem function would continue to decline with continued tree 

encroachment into spring, channel, meadow, and aspen habitats. 

The ability to retain sustainable and resilient ecosystems would be further compromised by 

vulnerability to high-severity fires. The overt threat of high-severity fire could limit options for 

treating uncharacteristic fuel loads through the use of unplanned ignitions, compounding the fire 

risk through time. By not treating adjacent to MSO habitat, the risk of high-severity fire remains 

high from ignitions starting outside of pine-oak habitats as well as fire igniting within MSO 

habitat. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives B, C, and D

Changes to MSO habitat structure as a result of these (4FRI, ongoing, and foreseeable) actions 

are expected to be minimal. None of the treatments would be expected to measurably decrease the 

number of trees greater than 12-inch d.b.h. Trees 18-inch d.b.h. or greater would be unaffected by 

the fuel reduction/restoration treatments. Total basal area of pine would decrease, but given the 

focus on small trees, their removal may not substantially alter total stand basal area. Gambel oak 

would not be targeted for removal and the total basal area of Gambel oak is not expected to 

change substantially in the long term. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 189

The reduction in small trees should open the space between ground level and crown base height, 

improving MSO flight paths for foraging. However, d.b.h. limits from past projects commonly 

resulted in loss of forest structure and a decrease in inherent heterogeneity in tree spacing. 

Reduced crown fire risk and increased understory production that result with diameter-capped 

treatments tend to be short-term because creation of interspace and irregular tree spacing typically 

cannot be attained.

Changes are expected in MSO prey habitat. Decreases would occur in CWD, logs, and snags. 

Burn prescriptions and ignition techniques should limit overall losses of logs and snags. Burned 

snags will fall and provide logs, and trees killed by fire will become snags. The longevity of firekilled snags would be less than that of snags formed from other processes. However, maintenance 

burning should provide pulses of snags and logs through time. Less CWD is expected to be 

present as a result of prescribed fire.

Thinning and burning should increase tree growth rates and self-pruning of the lower tree 

branches through time should gradually replenish CWD. Improving growing conditions should 

decrease density-related mortality of larger and older trees. Improving recruitment into the larger 

size classes will improve MSO habitat and the ability to provide large snags that remain on the 

landscape longer than smaller diameter or fire-created snags. The combination of thinning and 

burning should improve species richness in the herbaceous understory, increase plant abundance, 

and improve fruit and seed production. The projects considered for cumulative effects are areas 

that were omitted from the 4FRI planning effort because planning was already in progress or 

recently completed. Treating within these polygons will reduce fire threat for MSO habitat within 

the respective project polygon as well as reducing the threat of high-severity fire starting in these 

projects and burning habitat outside the polygons. 

Cumulative effects include local disturbance from noise and potentially additional disturbance 

from smoke. The individual projects include the Williams Ranger District (Bill Williams 

Mountain) and projects distributed across the Flagstaff district from the San Francisco Peaks to 

the edge of the Mogollon Rim. Given the various stages of planning or implementation, project 

effects are dispersed both spatially and temporally. Given the scale of the 4FRI treatment area 

(593,211 acres), the amount of MSO habitat within the treatment area (112,546 acres) and the 

period of time over which treatments will be implemented (10 or more years), the cumulative 

effects are expected to be negligible relative to the scale of both time and space within which 

potential effects would occur. 

Critical Habitat (Alternatives B, C, and D) 

The primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the owl include those physical 

and biological features that support nesting, roosting, and foraging. Primary constituent elements 

for MSO critical habitat within pine-oak forest provide one or more habitat needs for nesting, 

roosting, foraging, and include: 

Forest structure:

• A range of tree species of different sizes and ages;

• Thirty to 45 percent of the trees 12-inch d.b.h. or greater;

• Shade canopy of 40 percent or more; 

• Snags of 12-inch or greater d.b.h.; and
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

MSO prey habitat:

• High volume of fallen trees and other woody debris; 

• A wide range of tree and plant species, including hardwoods; 

• Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and plant regeneration.

Critical habitat includes both protected and restricted habitat, as defined in the MSO recovery 

plan. Six CHUs occur within or overlap the 4FRI project area, encompassing about 488,974 total 

acres. Approximately 91,047 acres of protected and restricted critical habitat in the 4FRI 

treatment area are within designated CHU boundaries. Effects to critical habitat are averaged 

across habitats (see discussion of effects to protected and restricted habitats by alternative in 

preceding discussion). Many of the differences between alternatives are limited when assessed at 

the scale of critical habitat. Overall, proposed mechanical treatment acres are similar between 

alternatives, but vary in terms of acres proposed for prescribed fire. 

Comparisons of most attributes are done for the year 2050 to allow for changes in forest 

development to become more readily apparent. The main exception is the relative index value for 

understory development which is compared for the year 2020 when herbaceous response to 

treatments is maximized. After that, tree growth would increase and the canopy would continue 

developing, causing a persistent decrease in understory response through 2050. 

Forest Structure

The distribution of tree size classes would be similar among alternatives, with alternatives B and 

C nearly identical, and alternative D frequently 1 or 2 percentages below them for trees greater 

than 18-inch d.b.h. All action alternatives had the same values for trees per acre 18-inch d.b.h. 

and greater. Forest densities would remain high, limiting the benefits of MSO treatments in terms 

of forest health and resiliency, but treatments would focus on releasing large trees from 

competition, increasing growth rates of large trees, and retaining or creating nesting and roosting 

habitat. 

Pine basal area would be reduced by all the action alternatives. Total basal area post treatment 

would be about the same in alternatives B and C. Gambel oak basal area and total basal area 

would consistently be higher in alternative D. The higher basal area values in alternative D would 

result from the limited acres of prescribed fire in this alternative.

The basal area, trees per acre, and SDI values post-treatment would provide for canopy cover. No 

species other than ponderosa pine would be targeted for selection, unless small trees of other 

species are within a crown diameter of old tree ponderosa pine or large Gambel oak (see design 

features in the wildlife report) would remain in the canopy ensuring species diversity and 

structural heterogeneity. Some oak would be lost to fire, particularly in alternatives B and C. 

Design features would be in place to minimize loss of larger oak. Fire would also be expected to 

stimulate oak sprouting. Canopy continuity would be maintained in protected and target and 

threshold habitats, but some defined tree groups and canopy openings would be created in 

restricted “other” habitat. Combined, this would retain nesting and roosting habitat in protected 

and target and threshold habitats and move restricted “other” habitat toward a blend of denser 

forest with an interspersion of increased foraging opportunities. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 191

MSO Prey Habitat

Snag habitat would be provided in MSO habitat. Results for snags greater than 12-inch d.b.h. (the 

measure for critical habitat) would be similar among alternatives. Nevertheless, alternative C 

would consistently rank lower and alternative D would consistently rank higher in snag densities. 

Most CHUs would average five or more snags per acre greater than 12-inch d.b.h., although 

UGM-12 and UGM-13 would average 2.5 to 3 snags per acre. Creating more large trees and 

improved growth rates for large trees should help ensure future snag recruitment (USDI 1995). 

Logs per acre would be maintained across critical habitat with similar results among action 

alternatives, although the pattern would continue with relatively lower values in alternative C and 

higher values in alternative D. Values for CWD would be similar between alternatives B and C, 

but typically several tons per acre higher in alternative D. This is directly correlated with the 

reduced acres of prescribed fire in alterative D. It is expected that low severity prescribed fire

would leave a patchy mosaic in alternatives B and C, including unburned areas. Small mammals, 

including key MSO prey species, tend to respond positively to restoration-based treatments 

(appendix 7 of the wildlife report). Levels of CWD exceed forest plan guidance in all alternatives.

The pattern in understory response would be different from other habitat components in that 

alternatives B and D were similar, with alternative B consistently higher. Overall, a greater 

response would occur under alternative C as a result of higher treatment intensity. Prey 

populations would be expected to benefit from retaining these structural elements after treatments

and prey species response would be expected to be greatest in alternative C and least in 

alternative D.

Fire Effects

Fire effects by alternative for protected and restricted habitats, including the no action alternative, 

are discussed in the previous MSO habitats discussion. In association with those discussions are 

displays of FRCC and fire behavior for ponderosa pine forest in general, as well as for each 

action alternative. The results would be the same for critical habitat: treatments would move all 

or most of the acres of MSO habitat from FRCC3 to FRCC1 and 2. Fire behavior would shift 

from 30 to 40 percent active crown fire, to 1 to 6 percent active crown fire in restricted habitat. 

Patterns for changes in fire behavior in protected habitat are similar to those for ponderosa pine 

forest in general: action alternatives would move most of the habitat into surface fire conditions 

in 2020. Alternatives B and C would move most of the ponderosa pine and about three-quarters of 

MSO protected habitat into conditions likely to support surface fire. Alternative D would move 

most of the ponderosa pine but less than 60 percent of the protected habitat toward surface fires. 

The remaining acres would remain vulnerable to high-severity fire.

Consistency with MSO Biological Opinions (2012)

Based on a review of the 2012 land and resource management plan (LRMP) biological opinions 

(BO) (USDI 2012a, 2012b) and information discussed in the above effects analysis, 

implementation of any of the action alternatives would be consistent with the forestwide 

programmatic LRMP biological opinions for the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests and that 

a forest plan amendment is not necessary.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Black-footed Ferret (Endangered)

There are presently no known naturally occurring populations of black-footed ferret. There are no 

known records of black-footed ferrets on the Coconino or Kaibab NFs. Black-footed ferrets are 

dependent upon prairie dogs for food and burrows, and Gunnison’ prairie dogs are the only prairie 

dog species that occurs in northern Arizona. Within the project area, prairie dogs occur in 

grasslands. Open linkages have been mapped within the project and are identified for prairie dogs 

(wildlife report, appendix 4).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat conditions for black-footed ferret would remain in their current condition, 

notwithstanding natural processes. Because there are no known black-footed ferrets on the project 

area, the probability of direct effects to black-footed ferrets from the current condition are low. 

Understory biomass would continue to decline over the next 40 years (appendix 8 of the wildlife 

report). This, in turn, leads to less available habitat for species such as the ferret that rely on 

prairie dogs for food. 

Stability of key ecosystem components such as species composition, forest structure, soil 

characteristics, and hydrologic function are at moderate to high risk of loss in the event of highseverity disturbance, such as high-severity wildfire, on 76 percent of grasslands. This alternative 

would result in the most stress on meadow and grassland habitats and, thus, would have the 

greatest negative contribution to potential black-footed ferret habitat.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

The area analyzed for cumulative effects to black-footed ferret encompasses the grasslands within 

the project area and the associated prairie dog complexes. Direct and indirect effects are unlikely 

to occur since there are no known locations of black-footed ferrets on the project area and 

potential habitat will be surveyed prior to implementation. There are no effects to black-footed 

ferret therefore, no cumulative effects.

Summary of Alternatives B, C, and D – Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects are unlikely to occur in any action alternative since there are no known locations of 

black-footed ferrets on the project area and potential habitat would be surveyed prior to 

implementation. Short term and localized effects from mechanical thinning and prescribed fire 

would result in the potential collapsing of burrows and displacement of prairie dogs in active 

prairie dog towns. In all alternatives, there would be restored connectivity of grasslands which 

would have a beneficial impact on prairie dog populations contributing to potential black-footed 

ferret habitat. There would be additional opportunities for prairie dogs to colonize new areas and 

recolonize areas where trees have encroached previously occupied habitat in Government and 

Garland Prairie, Kendrick Park, and other grasslands. 

Alternative C treats the most acres and elicits the greatest response in understory (see wildlife 

report, appendix 8). Potential for high-severity fire in grasslands would be reduced with the 

removal of encroaching trees, and prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in grasslands would 

improve the stability of the key ecosystem elements by almost doubling acres in FRCC1 and 

reducing FRCC3 by half (see fire ecology report).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 193

Alternative D produces the lowest response of understory biomass (see appendix 8 in the wildlife 

report) as there would be 20,645 fewer acres of prescribed fire only. There would be little change 

in high-severity fire potential and the lack of prescribed fire in grasslands reduces the acres in 

FRCC 1 by 3 percent and increases the acres in FRCC 3, reducing the stability of key ecosystem 

elements (see fire ecology report). The lack of burning means no nutrient pulse into the system, 

further limiting understory response. This alternative provides the least amount and lowest quality 

of habitat for prairie dogs hence less habitat for black-footed ferrets.

Forest Plan Amendments

The MSO amendments would allow managing for lower tree densities and basal area, creating 

canopy gaps, and increasing understory response. Not including amendments for MSO habitat 

would not affect ferret habitat because protected habitat does not overlap with grasslands or the 

forest matrix occurring between grasslands. The amendments would not affect resident or 

dispersing prairie dogs and, so, would not affect ferrets. 

Not including the amendment related to management of canopy cover and open reference 

conditions within ponderosa pine forest would prevent the ability to include open rooting space 

between tree groups and prevent the restoration of grasslands and savanna. This would prevent 

the restoration of forested areas that used to support grasslands and decrease the ability to 

maintain existing grasslands, savannas, and meadows. Decreased dispersal would reduce the 

ability of prairie dogs to naturally establish new prairie dog towns and limit the “rescue effect” of 

genetic exchange between fragmented populations. If some prairie dogs are genetically resistant

to plague, dispersal of these animals may be key to eventually establishing black-footed ferret 

habitat. Forest thinning, the creation of interspace, and reestablishing grasslands, savannas, and 

meadows would assist in enhancing the probability of successful dispersal. 

Not managing the proposed Garland Prairie RNA (alternative C only) for the grassland 

characteristics it was intended to support would result in similar, though more localized, 

dynamics. Not including actions related to openness and grassland restoration would omit or limit 

herbaceous response, decreasing prairie dog food and cover.

Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives

The area analyzed for cumulative effects to black-footed ferret encompasses the grasslands within 

the project area and the associated prairie dog complexes. Direct and indirect effects are unlikely 

to occur since there are no known locations of black-footed ferrets on the project area and 

potential habitat will be surveyed prior to implementation. There are no direct or indirect effects 

to black-footed ferrets, therefore, no cumulative effects.

California Condor (Endangered/Experimental Population)

Reintroduction of captive-bred condors in Arizona began in 1996 at the Vermilion Cliffs National 

Monument Release Site. Condors were reintroduced under Section 10(j) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (USDI 1996a). Under this designation, the protections for an endangered 

species are relaxed, providing greater flexibility for management of a reintroduction program. 

The Arizona portion of the designated nonessential experimental population area boundary 

extends south from Utah to Interstate 40. U.S. Highway 191 (parallel to the New Mexico State

border) is the east boundary and Interstate 15 to U.S. Highway 93 near Las Vegas, Nevada, is on 

the west. When condors leave this area, they receive full protection of the ESA, which may have 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

regulatory implications. Portions of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs north of I-40 are within the 

designated experimental population area. 

Between 2002 and 2006, The Peregrine Fund obtained more than 50,000 relocation fixes from an 

average of 17 GPS-equipped condors (Austin et al. 2007). Condor use is focused on the north and 

south rims and river corridor of the Grand Canyon, Kaibab Plateau, and Kolob area in southern 

Utah (approximately 70 miles north of the release site on the Paria Plateau). Condors do not 

spend much time south of the Grand Canyon. When they have traveled into the southern extent of 

the designated recovery zone, they head back north relatively rapidly. There are few reports of 

condors on the Coconino NF or the Williams or Tusayan Ranger Districts of the Kaibab NF

(Parrish, pers. comm.). The Arizona condor population was at 74 as of March 2011 (AGFD

2012). The project would not affect nesting or roosting habitat and, because condors rarely occur 

within the project area, would not affect foraging habitat. Therefore, no further analysis will be 

conducted. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Sensitive species are defined in Forest Service Manual 2670.5 as “those plant and animal species 

identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ 

existing distribution (USDA 2005).

The presence of 31 Forest Service sensitive species and golden eagles (protected under the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act) carried forward for analysis (table 70) was determined by 

consulting forest records, results of surveys conducted on the forests, and use of the FAAWN 

database (Patton 2011). The most recent Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list was 

transmitted to forest supervisors on October 1, 2007, and is the basis for the species used for this 

analysis. Species in bold font apply to both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Other species apply to 

the Coconino NF. 

See the “Aquatics” section for the sensitive species evaluation. Table 66, presented earlier, 

displays those species (with rationale) that were dismissed from this analysis. 

The environmental consequences incorporate the springs, streams, and road adaptive management 

actions. 

Table 70. Forest Service sensitive species or habitat occurrence in the project area

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

Amphibians (1)

Northern 

Leopard Frog

(Lithobates 

pipiens)

In Arizona, northern leopard frogs are absent from most historic locations. Northern 

leopard frogs were reported in several subunits (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 3-4, 3-5, 4-4, 4-5, 5-

1) within the project area. Their range within the project boundary is now limited to 

permanent waters around Stoneman Lake. There are 6 occupied/critical breeding sites and 

10 potential breeding sites in the project, or within a 1⁄4 mile of the project area boundary, 

and they occur within subunits 1-2, 1-5, and 1-6. Best potential habitat within the project 

area is tanks and springs that provide permanent water. Although potential habitat occurs in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 195

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

livestock waters in all cover types within RUs 1, 3, 4, and 5, the primary breeding and 

dispersal habitat occurs in RU 1 where the amphibian linkage is designated. RU 1 has 

8,230 acres of grassland and 145,793 acres of ponderosa pine, 24 miles of riparian habitat 

and ephemeral streams, and 32 springs.

Birds (7)

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

There are two nesting pairs of bald eagles within the project boundary. One breeding area 

occurs above the Mogollon Rim near Lower Lake Mary. The same pair has used two 

different nest locations along Lower Lake Mary (Coconino NF). The area is periodically 

monitored by AGFD and Northern Arizona Audubon Society. The alternate nest location is 

adjacent to FR 296A and has a higher level of disturbance within the area. The second 

breeding area is at Whitehorse Lake on the Kaibab NF. This nest was first documented in 

May 2012 and is located in an area of high recreation use. The nest was monitored by 

AGFD and confirmed active with one fledged nestling.

Bald eagles occurring on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs are primarily winter visitors. There 

are currently 38 eagle roosts spatially identified in GIS for the project area, of which 19 

have confirmed use by bald eagles. The remaining 19 roosts are identified as characteristics 

roosts and do not have documented use by bald eagles. Bald eagle confirmed and 

characteristic winter roosts are found in seven sites. 

Potential habitat within the treatment area is 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine but is habitat 

primarily within 2.5 miles from bodies of permanent water (i.e. Upper and Lower Lake 

Mary, Horseshoe Lake, Mormon Lake, and Roger’s Lake) and along major roadways (i.e. 

Interstates 17 and 40, U.S. Highways 89A and 89N and Forest Highway 3). 

Northern 

Goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis)

On the Coconino NF, opportunistic sightings and limited surveys were conducted in the 

1980s and in 1990. Annual surveys were initiated in 1991. As of 2008, there were 70 

known territories on the Coconino NF (see wildlife report, table 29). Goshawk territories 

have been established based on the results of surveys. Goshawk surveys were conducted in 

2011 and 2012. There are currently 68 goshawk territories on the southern portion of the 

Kaibab NF, including 36 goshawk PFAs on the Kaibab NF portion of the project area.

Goshawk surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2012. There are 30,600 acres of goshawk 

PFA, dispersal PFA and nest areas, and 369,033 acres of non-PFA. 

American 

Peregrine Falcon

(Falco peregrinus 

anatum)

There are 20 confirmed nesting pairs of peregrine falcons within the project area. Nests 

occur in eight subunits (1-1, 1-6, 3-1, 3-4, 3-5, 4-3, 4-4, and 5-1). Known nest locations, 

tall cliffs, open waters, and meadows provide potential habitat within the project boundary. 

Foraging habitat in the treatment area is primarily 48,774 acres of grassland, 39 miles of

riparian habitat and ephemeral streams, and 74 springs and wetlands.

Clark’s Grebe

(Aechmophorus 

clarkia)

There is confirmed nesting at Mormon Lake southeast of Flagstaff (Coconino NF). Most 

potential habitat is located on Anderson Mesa (subunits 1-2 and 1-4), Marshall Lake 

(subunit 1-3) and Mormon Lake (subunit 1-5) (Coconino NF).Neither resident Clark’s 

grebe nor their habitat have been identified on the Kaibab NF and they are not considered a 

sensitive species on the forest.

Burrowing Owl 

(western) (Athene 

cunicularia 

hypugaea)

Breeding Bird Atlas surveys confirmed nesting from approximately 100 feet elevation near 

Gladsden to 6,600 feet elevation in a prairie dog colony near Flagstaff (Coconino NF). 

However, burrowing owls have not been confirmed within the project area. There are 

48,774 acres of grassland habitat within the treatment area that provides potential habitat 

for prairie dogs and, consequently, burrowing owls.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

Ferruginous Hawk 

(Buteo regalis)

Breeding Bird Atlas surveys confirmed nesting ferruginous hawks occupying a fairly 

narrow range of elevations, from 4,700 feet to 6,400 feet (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005) 

with no documented nesting on the Coconino or Kaibab NFs. Ferruginous hawks forage in 

montane subalpine grasslands in the Flagstaff vicinity. There are 48,774 acres of grassland 

habitat within the treatment area that provide potential habitat for prairie dogs and, 

consequently, ferruginous hawks. The hawk is not considered a sensitive species on the 

Kaibab NF.

Insects (3)

Four-spotted 

Skipperling 

(Piruna polingii) 

The four spotted skipperling is associated with mixed broadleaf deciduous and montane 

willow riparian forest, wetland cienega, and montane subalpine grasslands. Of these 

habitats, only montane subalpine grassland and wetland cienega occur in the treatment 

area. There are 48,774 acres of montane subalpine grassland and 74 springs in the 

treatment area.

Nitocris Fritillary

(Speyeria nokomis 

nitocris)

Habitat includes mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, spruce-fir, montane willow riparian 

forests, and wetland cienega vegetation types. Of these, only the ponderosa pine and 

wetland cienega occur in the project area. It is a sensitive species for the Coconino NF. It 

has not been recorded on the Kaibab NF and is not considered a sensitive species for the 

forest where the habitat is too dry and water too ephemeral to provide habitat. Potential 

habitat within the project area is found throughout the 470,990 acres of ponderosa pine, 51 

springs, and 85 miles of riparian habitat in RUs 1, 3, 4, and 5 within the treatment area.

Nokomis Fritillary

(Speyeria nokomis 

Nokomis)

Within the project area, they are known from drainages in the San Francisco Mountains. It 

is a sensitive species on the Coconino NF. It has not been recorded on the Kaibab NF and is 

not considered a sensitive species for the forest where the habitat is too dry and water too 

ephemeral to provide habitat. Potential habitat within the project area is found in RUs 1, 3, 

4, and 5. Within these RUs, there are 51 springs and 85 miles riparian habitat that provide 

habitat in the treatment area.

Mammals (9)

Navajo Mogollon 

Vole

(Microtus 

mogollonensis 

Navaho)

Hoffmeister (1986) delineated the range for this vole from Navajo Mountain southward to 

the western part of the Mogollon Plateau, extending from near Mormon Lake westward 

toward the town of Williams and up to the Tusayan district. They occur within open forests 

and in larger grassland areas such as Garland and Government Prairies on the Williams 

district (Ganey and Chambers 2011). There are 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine and 

48,774 acres of grassland within the treatment area.

Long-tailed Vole 

(Microtus 

longicaudus)

Small mammal surveys have not documented long-tail voles; however, they are expected to 

occur within the project area. Potential habitat within the treatment area is 48,744 acres of 

grassland, 51 springs, 85 miles of riparian habitat, and ephemeral streams. The vole is not 

found on the Williams or Tusayan RDs, only considered on North Kaibab RD for the 

Kaibab NF.

Merriam’s Shrew 

(Sorex merriami 

leucogengys) 

Merriam’s shrew is distributed throughout the west and Hoffmeister (1986) shows them 

distributed along the Mogollon Rim. No surveys have been completed. However, 

Merriam’s shrews are expected to occur in ponderosa pine forests within the project area.

There are 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine within the treatment area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 197

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

Dwarf Shrew 

(Sorex nanus)

The species is known to occur on the San Francisco Peaks and White Mountains 

(Hoffmeister 1986), however, shrews have not been documented in the project area. 

Potential habitat within the treatment area is 25,658 acres of pinyon-juniper, 512,178 acres 

of ponderosa pine, and 48,744 acres of grassland. The shrew is not found on the Williams 

or Tusayan RDs and only occurs on North Kaibab RD for the Kaibab NF. 

Western Red Bat 

(Lasiurus 

blossevillii)

In the Grand Canyon, Hoffmeister (1971) reports the western red bat were only found in 

the bottom of the canyon near Phantom Ranch and along Bright Angel Creek

approximately 6 miles from the project area. On rare occasion, red bats have been 

documented near Kachina Village (subunit 3-4) and upper West Clear Creek Wilderness 

and Page Springs Fish Hatchery. The latter two locations are outside of the project area. 

One bat was radio-tracked near Kachina Village within the project area and roosted in a 

clump of Gambel oak in dry ponderosa pine forest (Chambers, pers. comm. 2010). Given 

they are an uncommon summer resident on the Coconino NF, they could conceivably be a 

rare visitor on the Kaibab NF as well. However, extensive netting on both the Williams and

Tusayan districts failed to produce records of western red bats. There are 34 caves within 

300 feet of the treatment area boundary. A 300-foot buffer around cave entrances and 

sinkhole rims is a design feature applicable to all action alternatives. Potential foraging 

habitat within the treatment area includes 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine and 48,774 acres 

of grassland. Roosting habitat may occur along the 39 miles of riparian habitat and 

ephemeral streams.

Spotted Bat 

(Euderma 

maculatum)

Historic records suggest that the spotted bat is widely distributed, rare across its range, but 

can be locally abundant. In Arizona, spotted bats commonly roost singly in crevices in 

rocky cliffs and they have also been found in caves (Chambers, pers. comm. 2009). Cliff 

habitat and surface water are characteristic of localities where they occur. Meadows, 

openings, and open forests with diverse herbaceous ground cover provide habitat for prey 

species. There are 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine and 48,774 acres of grassland within 

the treatment area. Spotted bats have been captured in coniferous forests on the Kaibab 

Plateau over 25 miles from the project area and in other western states. Netting efforts have

not resulted in captures on the Coconino NF or the Williams RD, but spotted bats were 

captured on the Tusayan district, RU 6 (Solvesky, pers. comm.2008). There are no known 

roost locations within the project area. Surveys of abandoned mines and natural caves on 

the districts did not detect any spotted bats (Corbett 2008).

Allen’s Lappetbrowed Bat 

(Idionycteris 

phyllotis) 

A study conducted within the project area (RUs 1, 3, and 6) documented lappet-browed 

bats using snags for maternity roosts. Female roost trees were all within ponderosa pine 

forests. They occur across the ponderosa pine belt on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs and 

occurrences are documented in the project area in subunits 1-5, 3-3, 5-1, and 6-3. Potential 

habitat within the treatment area is 512,178 acres of ponderosa pine and 25,658 acres of 

pinyon-juniper.

Pale Townsend’s 

Big-Eared Bat

(Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens)

A 2007 bat roost inventory and monitoring project documented Townsend’s big-eared bats 

on both the Kaibab and Coconino NFs (Solvesky and Chambers 2007). Pale Townsend’s 

are known to occur within the project area (subunits 4-3, 5-2, 3-3, 1-3, and 3-5). They use a 

wide range of habitats, including ponderosa pine forest. Potential habitat includes 512,178 

acres of ponderosa pine and 48,774 acres of grassland within the treatment area. There are 

34 caves within 300 feet of the treatment area boundary. A 300-foot buffer around cave

entrances and sinkhole rims is a design feature applicable to all action alternatives.

Greater Western 

Mastiff Bat 

(Eumops perotis 

californicus)

The range for this bat includes all Arizona counties, except Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, and 

Santa Cruz. A specimen was collected after death near Flagstaff in 1992. They have been 

documented roosting in the Grand Canyon and foraging across the Kaibab Plateau over 25 

miles from the project area. Potential habitat within the project area is 512,178 acres of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

ponderosa pine and 48,774 acres of grassland habitat. There are no known roost locations 

on the Coconino NF or the south zone of the Kaibab NF, although roost habitat may occur 

on or near the Tusayan district (RU 6) (Solvesky, pers. comm. 2008). The bat is not 

considered a sensitive species on the Kaibab NF.

Reptiles (1)

Narrow-headed 

Garter Snake 

(Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus)

On the Coconino NF, narrow-headed garter snakes are currently known from Oak Creek 

Canyon and a few sightings from the Verde River, approximately 5 and 8 miles 

respectively from the project area. Population numbers in Oak Creek Canyon have 

decreased significantly, particularly in the lower third of the canyon. Since the late 1980s, 

they have been entirely absent downstream of Oak Creek Canyon. Based on 

cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf riparian habitats, this species is considered a 

potential resident of all Coconino NF districts. Neither this species nor its habitat occurs on 

the Kaibab NF. There are no known locations of narrow-headed garter snake within the

project area; however, 42 miles of riparian habitat and ephemeral drainages could provide 

potential habitat. The entire area within subunit 3-5 was considered for potential impacts to 

downstream habitat in Oak Creek. Their habitat has not been identified on the Kaibab NF

and is not considered a sensitive species on the forest.

Plants (9) 

Arizona Bugbane 

(Cimicifuga 

arizonica)

The plant occupies mesic canyons in the Oak Creek Canyon, West Fork of Oak Creek and 

its tributaries, and West Clear Creek (Coconino NF). The first two areas are in or near the 

analysis area boundary. Monitoring for Arizona bugbane has occurred on the Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs since 1993. See table 7 in the botany report for the plant site location in 

relation to 16 past treatments. 

Rusby Milkvetch 

(Astragalus 

rusbyi)

There are numerous occurrences of Rusby milkvetch in the Hart Prairie (2010) and Wing 

Mountain (2012) projects on the Coconino NF. Occurrences have also been recorded on the 

Kaibab NF in the Frenchy Project Area (2003) and on the adjacent Camp Navajo (Springer 

2009). Coconino Rural Environmental Corps (CREC) (2011) detected numerous locations 

of this plant in the A-1 Mountain area. Figure 6 and table 8 in the botany report displays 

occurrences in the project area.

Arizona 

Leatherflower 

(Clematis 

hirsutissima var. 

hirsutissima) 

Within the project area, many populations occur near Lower Lake Mary, in Skunk Canyon, 

and in Fay Canyon. Arizona leatherflower also occurs on the Tusayan district of the Kaibab 

NF near Ten X Tank (Kaibab NF). Habitat includes rocky hillsides with slopes from 12 to 

40 percent with aspects generally from 320 to 40 degrees (Arizona Game and Fish 

Abstracts 1993). Other scattered populations occur on Harold Ranch Road in east Flagstaff 

(private land), in Mountainaire (private land), Fort Valley, and near Hoe Tank on the 

Mogollon Rim district, which is outside the current project area but within ponderosa pine 

habitat. Table 9 in the botany report displays plant site locations where vegetation and 

prescribed fire projects have occurred. Prescribed fire projects (Skunk RX Burn), trail 

projects and grazing would be implemented near known populations and the potential for 

wildfire would remain. These actions combined with 4FRI actions would continue to affect 

habitat but none of these actions would lead to a trend toward Federal listing.

Flagstaff 

Pennyroyal 

(Hedeoma 

diffusum)

There are two major population areas for this species on the Coconino NF. The first 

population within the project area extends roughly from Flagstaff, east to Marshall Lake 

and Fisher point, then south to the vicinity of Mountainaire, then to Lower Lake Mary. A 

second population area (outside the project area) is near the rim of Oak Creek Canyon and 

its tributaries (Boucher 1984, Phillips 1984). On the Kaibab NF, it occurs in wilderness and 

would not be affected by the project. Table 10 in the botany report displays site locations 

that would be affected by alternatives.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 199

Common

(Scientific 

Name) 

Species or Habitat Occurrence in Project Area

Arizona 

Sneezeweed 

(Helenium 

arizonicum) 

This endemic species ranges from the Mormon Lake area (Coconino NF) southeastward to 

the White Mountains area where it grows in drainages, near springs, ponds, and other wet 

areas. This species has been observed in ephemeral drainages in the Upper Lake Mary 

watershed (Coconino NF). Numerous groups were detected in the Antelope Park area 

(Coconino NF) by CREC crews in 2011. There are no known locations of Arizona

sneezeweed on the Kaibab NF. Table 11 in the botany report documents site locations 

within project treatment units.

Sunset Crater 

Beardstongue 

(Penstemon clutei) 

The range of this species is limited to the Sunset Crater volcanic field near Flagstaff, 

including the Coconino NF and Sunset Crater National Monument. There are many 

locations of Sunset Crater beardtongue in the northeast corner of the project area. Many of 

these are in treatment units where burning or operational burning would occur. See table 12 

in the botany report. 

Flagstaff 

Beardtongue 

(Penstemon 

nudiflorus)

Flagstaff beardtongue grows in dry pine forests, pine/oak, pine/oak/juniper, and pinyonjuniper forests. It occurs on dry slopes, in openings, and along edges of openings and in 

forested areas. Table 13 in the botany report documents site locations within project 

treatment units by alternative.

Blumer’s Dock 

(Rumex 

orthoneurus) 

The known distribution of Blumer’s dock in the project area is limited to a few enclosures 

around springs and wet areas. The known occurrences of Blumer’s dock within the project 

area are limited to the Hart Prairie Area, where it shares the habitat with Bebb’s willow. 

There may be other occurrences at other locations in the project area where suitable habitat 

exists. Documented threats to Blumer’s dock include grazing, water diversions, mining, 

and recreation (USDI 1999).

Bebb’s Willow 

(Salix bebbiana

Bebb’s willow is a sensitive species for the Coconino NF only. Protection of Bebb’s 

willow was a concern brought up by the public during scoping. The Coconino NF has long 

recognized the rarity on the landscape for Bebb’s willow. The Fern Mountain Botanical 

Area (established in 1987 in the Coconino forest plan) contains a unique Bebb’s willow 

community. Elsewhere in the project area, Bebb’s willows are confined to single plants or 

groups of plants and the unique Bebb’s willow community type is not present.

Within the project area, documented locations include the Hart Prairie and Mormon Lake 

areas on the Coconino NF. There are Bebb’s willows in two stands scheduled for treatment 

in the Mormon Lake area. These include location 435 site 3, which is scheduled for burning 

only and 454 site 3, which is scheduled to be thinned and burned. Location 454 site 3 is the 

area surrounding Double Spring which is proposed for spring restoration. Several groups of 

Bebb’s willow occur in the area of Sawmill Spring in location 548 site 3, 704/6, 704/12, 

531/7, and 541/13. Many of these plants are dead or decadent and some are heavily 

browsed. Location 548 site 3 is proposed for channel restoration and operational burning in 

this project. Location 704 sites 6 and 12 are proposed for thinning and burning 

accompanied by operation burning. Location 531 site 7 and location 541 site 13 are in a 

MSO PAC and are proposed for thinning and burning.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Sensitive Species Environmental Consequences

Alternative A Summary of Effects Common to All Forest Sensitive Species

Habitat would remain at high risk from undesirable fire effects from high-severity wildfire (see 

“Fire Ecology” section). Fire that results in undesirable fire effects could adversely affect 

potential habitat by removing understory and overstory vegetation and altering soil structure and 

nutrients. For sensitive plants, these types of changes to the habitat could adversely affect habitat 

and populations by damaging soil, killing existing plants, and reducing or destroying seed banks. 

Springs and ephemeral channels would continue to exhibit downward trends in functional 

condition or remain in static condition for the foreseeable future (see water quality and riparian 

report) which could degrade existing and potential habitat. Lack of movement toward historic 

conditions could result in reduced food and reproductive sites and reduced habitat connectivity. 

Trees would continue to encroach on habitats and understory biomass would continue to decline 

over the next 40 years (see wildlife report, appendix 8). Increased trees and reduced understory 

biomass would impact cover and forage, reducing the quantity and quality of habitats, and 

increasing predation potential. 

In terms of nesting and roosting habitat, tree densities—as measured by percent maximum SDI—

would continue to be in the high to extremely high density range, slowing growth rates and, 

thereby, limiting the development of larger diameter (≥ 18-inch) trees and snags, both of which 

are important for nesting and roosting. 

Alternative A Cumulative Effects

For semiaquatic species such as the northern leopard frog, degradation of habitat facilitated by 

this alternative would cumulatively combine with other forest activities, high impact recreational 

use, livestock grazing, habitat loss, and degradation on private lands and climate change, and 

would continue to fragment key aquatic and dispersal habitat. 

For terrestrial species, birds, and insects, degradation and fragmentation of habitat would 

cumulatively combine with other forest activities, high impact recreational use, livestock grazing, 

use of nonjurisdictional roads, habitat loss and degradation on private lands, and climate change 

would continue to fragment key nesting and foraging habitat. Prescribed fire treatments in 

adjacent projects and grazing may result in short-term impacts to habitat, but these are not 

expected to result in long-term cumulative impacts and are expected to be localized in nature. 

Continued dense forest conditions would limit the growth and sustainability of large trees slowing 

development of potential roost areas. Other activities including utility line and road 

reconstruction and maintenance, high-impact recreation, and climate change would combine to 

result in degradation of nesting and roosting habitat. See table 71 for the cumulative effects 

baseline and assessment of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions.

For all sensitive plants, alternative A results in the potential for severe effects from wildfire that 

could adversely affect the habitat and populations by damaging soil, killing existing plants, and 

by reducing or destroying the seed bank. Noxious or invasive weeds would increase and 

contribute to degradation of the habitat and loss of individuals and populations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 201

Alternatives B, C, and D Summary of Effects

See table 71 for the effects and sensitive species effects determinations for alternatives B, C, and 

D.

Table 71. Alternatives B, C, and D sensitive species environmental consequences 

determination

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Amphibians 

Northern 

Leopard 

Frog

Mitigations measures would reduce the likelihood of direct impacts to frogs from mechanical 

thinning, temporary road construction, spring, seep and ephemeral drainage restoration, road 

decommissioning, prescribed fire, and the spread of chytrid fungus. Seventy-four springs/seeps

would be restored, with 32 of those in RU 1, which contains all critical and potential breeding 

sites. Restoration would increase riparian vegetation increasing availability of food and 

reproductive sites over the long term, resulting in direct beneficial effects to habitat. Twentyfour miles of ephemeral streams would be restored in RU 1 resulting in improved cover and 

waterflow that provides escape from predators and prevents water loss for migrating leopard 

frogs. Spring and channel restoration would result in short-term disturbance to vegetation during 

implementation. Restored vegetation would be expected to recover within a 1- to 3-year period 

(soil report). Approximately 127 acres of breeding and dispersal habitat would be impacted by 

road reconstruction. About 615 acres of forested habitat may be improved within breeding and 

dispersal habitat. Constructing 71 miles of temporary roads would temporarily disturb 

vegetation and reduce habitat quality for leopard frogs.

In all alternatives the likelihood of large high-severity wildfires adversely affecting potential 

habitat by destroying understory and overstory vegetation would be reduced in RU 1 by 37 

percent in ponderosa pine and 5 percent in grasslands.

Specific to alternative C: The installation of 15 weirs in drainages within RUs 1, 3, and 5 could 

potentially act as barriers and limit the ability to occupy additional areas. The alternative results 

in the greatest response in understory (wildlife report, appendix 8) and increases the likelihood 

of successfully foraging around and migrating between livestock tanks due to decreased risk of 

predation. The likelihood of large high-severity wildfires adversely affecting potential habitat by 

destroying understory and overstory vegetation would be reduced in RU 1 by 37 percent in 

ponderosa pine and 18 percent in grasslands.

Specific to alternative D: The lowest response of understory biomass occurs. It would result in 

less cover reducing the likelihood of successfully foraging around and migrating between 

livestock tanks due to increased risk of predation. The lack of burning further limits understory 

response, however, the reduction of prescribed fire could reduce direct impacts to frogs 

migrating overland between stock tanks. The likelihood of large high-severity wildfires 

adversely affecting potential habitat by destroying understory and overstory vegetation would be 

reduced in RU 1 by 32 percent in ponderosa pine and 1 percent in grasslands.

Cumulative Effects: Direct impacts from mechanical thinning, temporary road construction, 

prescribed fire, and other restoration activities would combine with ongoing activities that have 

similar effects. Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in appendix 12 of 

the wildlife report include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen regeneration, tornado 

rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. Cumulatively, activities are not 

expected to result in long-term effects and are expected to be localized in nature.

Effects Determination: Implementation of alternatives B, C, and D may impact 

individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Birds

Bald Eagle Direct effects would be from activities that cause disturbances (smoke, auditory, or visual) to 

bald eagles nesting or foraging within or adjacent to the project. There would be no direct 

adverse effects to nesting eagles as project design features would eliminate disturbance near 

known nesting sites. Subunit 1-3 could have a restricted burning period to reduce smoke impacts 

to two nests. Specialists reviewed the other nest site on the Kaibab NF and determined it would 

not be impacted from smoke. There would be no effect to nesting or roosting eagles, however, 

short-term disturbance to foraging bald eagles would occur during mechanical treatments, 

prescribed fire, hauling of timber, and other project activities which may cause visual or auditory 

disturbance to foraging bald eagles. Disturbance would be localized and of short duration, and 

may affect individual birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the 

species. There are no anticipated adverse effects to prey species or prey species habitat.

Thinning would improve old tree longevity, resulting in beneficial effects. Snags used by bald 

eagle would slightly increase post treatment (2020) and continue to increase in the long term. 

Alternative D would provide 5 percent less developing old growth in the short term (post 

treatment) and 5 percent less long term (30 years post treatment) compared to alternatives B 

and C.

Cumulative Effects: Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in 

appendix 12 of the wildlife specialist report and include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen 

regeneration, tornado rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. 

Implementation of other project activities could occur simultaneously; however, it is not 

anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. All alternatives would improve and develop 

quality potential nesting and roosting habitat by developing groups of large trees and snags that 

are more fire resilient. This positive effect would be combined with similar effects from 

activities such as the travel management efforts that may decrease the frequency of disturbance 

on the majority of potential roost sites, slightly counteracting the effects of utility line and road 

construction and maintenance, and short-term disturbances from vegetation management and 

prescribed fire.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals, but are not likely 

to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

American 

Peregrine 

Falcon

About 816 acres of habitat would be impacted by road reconstruction. Springs and channel 

actions would improve habitat. There would be short-term disturbance to vegetation during 

implementation but restored vegetation would be expected within a 1-year period. About 2,712 

acres of forested habitat would be positively affected from road decommissioning. Eliminating 

disturbance along roadways would be expected to improve the quality of habitat in the long 

term. Constructing temporary roads would temporarily disturb vegetation and potentially reduce 

available habitat on 1,671 acres for peregrine prey. Use of these roads by machinery and 

equipment could crush animals moving across the road. These effects may impact individuals 

but are expected to be short term, occurring only during project implementation. Vegetation 

would be restored over the long term. No direct effects from mechanical treatments, temporary 

road construction, prescribed fire, or spring and riparian habitat and ephemeral streams 

restoration is expected due to eyrie locations (cliff ledges in rugged canyons). Activity 

disturbances would be localized, of short duration, and low intensity, and may affect individual 

birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species. Restoring

habitats toward historic conditions and increasing water yield across the forest to improve 

marsh, pond, or lake habitat can increase prey base for peregrine falcons, resulting in an indirect 

beneficial effect.

Specific to alternative C: Increased acres of grassland restoration would have a greater

beneficial effect to peregrine prey. Constructing 15 weirs that would impact 3 acres would not 

have a discernible impact to prey species habitat at the project level.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 203

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Specific to alternative D: The alternative produces the lowest response of understory biomass. 

The reduced understory biomass would result in fewer habitats for peregrine prey.

Cumulative Effects: Other present and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in appendix 12

of the wildlife specialist report. Those projects where thinning and burning occurs could affect 

the prey base on a short-term basis by impacting individuals of prey species due to disturbance 

of prey species’ habitat and harm from fire. However, projects would be implemented at 

different times and/or different locations, thus disturbances to the prey base would be 

minimized. Other past, present, and ongoing projects have implemented thinning (2,304 acres) 

and prescribed fire (8,951 acres) in grasslands and prescribed fire (11 springs) and mechanical 

treatment (6 springs) improving habitats for peregrine prey species in the long term.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals, but are not likely 

to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Clark’s 

Grebe

There would be no direct effects to Clark’s Grebe eggs, young, or adults from mechanical 

treatment and/or prescribed fire. Management in adjacent ponderosa pine, grasslands, and 

ephemeral drainages could indirectly affect habitat by increasing water yield and improving 

marsh, pond, and lake habitats increasing availability of food and reproductive sites for these 

species over the long term, resulting in direct beneficial effects to habitat. 

In alternative C, the research areas are not located within subunits where grebe habitat exists. 

Cumulative Effects: Thinning and prescribed fire have occurred in both ponderosa pine and 

juniper with projects such as Anderson Mesa Prescribed Burn, Lake Mary, Elk Park and 

Mormon Lake Basin Fuels Reduction and Forest Health projects, and Picket Agra Ax reducing 

tree densities potentially increasing water yield into grebe’s habitat. Implementation of BMPs 

would curtail soil erosion and minimize potential for inflow into potential Clark’s grebe habitat. 

Impacts from livestock grazing and increased drought from climate change are expected to be 

somewhat decreased by a reduction of tree densities increasing water yield into grebe’s habitat.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D would have no impact to the Clark’s 

grebe.

Burrowing 

Owl 

(Western)

There are no documented nesting burrowing owls in the project area, however, potential nesting 

habitat does exist. Direct effects could occur if motorized equipment runs over aboveground 

nests or burrows. While 10 to 15 percent of the immediate area in grasslands may be disturbed 

in the short term, the area is expected to quickly be covered with new needle duff and improved 

herbaceous vegetative cover and improved soil productivity in the longer term (more than 2 

years) (soil resources report). Indirect effects include effects to owl habitat, owl prey species, or 

prey species habitat. Restoring habitats toward historic conditions could increase potential 

nesting and foraging habitats. Meadow restoration would improve and increase available habitat 

for prairie dogs, which would provide nesting habitat for owls. Treatments would increase 

available habitat for prairie dogs with 11,185 acres of grassland restoration. Prescribed fire 

would remove cover and food. However, it is anticipated that meadows and open areas would 

rebound afterwards, with more vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats 

for insects and small mammals, increasing food sources and resulting in an indirect beneficial 

effect.

Specific to alternative C: Decreases tree encroachment in grasslands by treating 48,206 more 

acres of grassland, thus decreasing impacts to the larger prairie dog population. Treatments 

would occur within open linkages providing additional opportunities for Gunnison’s prairie dogs

to colonize new areas and recolonize areas where trees have encroached previously occupied 

habitat in Government and Garland Prairie, Kendrick Park, and other grasslands. Alternative C 

treats the most acres and elicits the greatest response in understory (appendix 8 of the wildlife 

report). As a result, the habitat as a whole would be more likely to support a greater prairie dog 

population in grassland systems in the project area, thus supporting more potential owl habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Specific to alternative D: The alternative does not include prescribed fire across the mechanical 

treatments and there are about 20,645 fewer acres of prescribed fire only, further limiting 

understory response. This alternative provides the least amount and lowest quality of habitat for

prairie dogs hence less habitat for burrowing owls.

Cumulative Effects: Activities such as implementation of the travel management decisions are 

likely to decrease motorized use in grasslands, thus decreasing impacts to prairie dog 

populations. This, combined with forest restoration activities, could open up more habitats or 

provide more contiguous swaths of grassland habitat key to supporting thriving prairie dog 

colonies. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in appendix 12 of the

wildlife specialist report. Past projects have implemented thinning on 2,304 acres and prescribed 

fire on 8,951 acres in grasslands. Short-term and localized effects from mechanical thinning and 

prescribed fire would result in the potential collapsing of burrows and displacement of prairie 

dogs. This impact may combine with short-term cumulative impacts from localized dispersed 

camping, wildfire, and wildfire suppression activities to temporarily displace prairie dog 

populations (and, thus, burrowing owls) in a limited area. The thinning of 2,304 acres and 

prescribed fire on 8,951 acres in grasslands would add to the acres of treatments in this project to 

reduce tree densities in grasslands and connect open corridors across the analysis area providing 

additional potential habitat for burrowing owls.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D would have no impact to burrowing owls. 

Ferruginous 

Hawk

There are no direct effects to ferruginous hawks as none are known to nest in the project area. 

Indirect effects to the ferruginous hawk include effects to prey species or prey species habitat. 

Alternative B: While 10 to 15 percent of the immediate area in grasslands and 10 to 20 percent 

in savanna may be disturbed in the short term, grasslands are expected to quickly be covered 

with new needle duff and improved herbaceous vegetative cover in the longer term (more than 2 

years). Savanna restoration would increase available habitat for prairie dogs with 11,185 acres of 

meadow and 45,469 acres of savanna treatments, resulting in an indirect beneficial effect. 

Project activities may cause visual or auditory disturbance to foraging ferruginous hawks; 

however, these are short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally 

and spatially separated. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity, 

and may affect individual birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of 

the species.

Alternative C treats the most acres and elicits the greatest response in understory. This would 

improve habitat for ferruginous hawks prey species.

Alternative D provides the least amount and lowest quality of habitat for prey species, hence 

less habitat for ferruginous hawks.

Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in appendix 12

of the wildlife specialist report. Past projects have implemented thinning on 2,304 acres and 

prescribed fire 8,951 acres in grasslands. Short-term and localized effects from mechanical 

thinning and prescribed fire would result in the potential collapsing of burrows and displacement 

of prairie dogs. This impact may combine with short-term cumulative impacts from localized 

dispersed camping, wildfire, and wildfire suppression activities to temporarily displace prairie 

dog populations (and, thus, ferruginous hawks) in a limited area. The thinning of 2,304 acres and 

prescribed fire on 8,951 acres in grasslands would add to the acres of treatments in this project to 

reduce tree densities in grasslands and connect open corridors across the project area providing 

additional potential habitat for ferruginous hawks.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D would have no impact to ferruginous 

hawks.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 205

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Insects 

Four-spotted 

Skipperling

Under alternative B, approximately 74 springs would be restored on potential habitat. There 

would be short-term disturbance to vegetation during implementation of stream and spring 

restoration projects; however, restored vegetation would be expected to recover within a 1- to 3-

year period (soil resources report). Indirect effects from mechanical treatments, temporary road 

construction, and prescribed fire would disturb or remove understory vegetation, in effect 

reducing availability to adult butterflies and/or caterpillars. However, these would be short-term 

effects and would be minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. 

Moving these habitats toward historic conditions could increase heterogeneity providing both 

direct habitat connectivity and habitat stepping stones facilitating landscape movement.

In alternative C, the overall increase in grassland treatments would have a greater beneficial 

impact on the development of understory vegetation, increasing availability of food and 

reproductive sites and improving habitat connectivity resulting in indirect beneficial effects.

In alternative D, the understory response is not anticipated to be as robust due to the lack of 

prescribed fire after mechanical treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative activities such as implementation of travel management 

decisions are likely to decrease motorized use in grasslands and meadows, thus decreasing 

impacts to butterfly habitat. This combined with forest restoration activities could open up more 

habitats or provide more contiguous swaths of grassland habitat key to supporting thriving 

butterfly populations. Short-term and localized effects from mechanical thinning, temporary 

road construction, and prescribed fire would result in the temporary reduction of understory 

vegetation reducing plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. This impact may 

combine with short-term cumulative impacts from localized dispersed camping, wildfire and 

wildfire suppression activities, ungulate grazing, and drought from climate change to 

temporarily displace butterflies in a limited area.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the four-spotted skipperling, 

but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Nitocris 

Fritillary

Approximately 47 springs and 32 miles of ephemeral streams would be restored in potential 

habitat on the Coconino NF. The impacts and benefits associated with springs and stream 

restoration and indirect effects of other activities would be the same as described above for the 

four-spotted skipperling. Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

are listed in appendix 12 of the wildlife report and include projects within wet areas within the 

ponderosa pine, springs, and wet meadows. Past activities within springs, wet meadows, and 

riparian streams have been limited with mechanical treatments implemented on three springs and 

1.3 miles of riparian habitats and prescribed fire on eight springs and 2.8 miles of riparian 

habitats. There are 44 springs within a half mile of the project boundary that may be improved 

through current and reasonably foreseeable projects that reduced tree densities and increased 

understory vegetation improving functional condition. These projects would combine with this 

forest restoration project to improve habitat for nitocris fritillary. The cumulative effects are the 

same as described for the four-spotted skipperling.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the nitocris fritillary, but are

not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Nokomis 

Fritillary

Approximately 51 springs/seeps and 85 miles of ephemeral streams would be restored in 

potential habitat. The impacts and benefits associated with springs and stream restoration, and 

indirect effects of other activities would be the same as described above for the four-spotted 

skipperling.

Cumulative effects are the same as described above for nitocris fritillary.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the Nokomis fritillary, but are

not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Mammals

Navajo 

Mogollon 

Vole

Under alternative B, thinning and prescribed fire activities may disturb individual voles, 

resulting in direct adverse effects. Prescribed fire would result in the removal of cover and food; 

however, it is anticipated that meadows and open areas would rebound afterwards, with more 

vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats. Such activities would occur 

across the project area at different times; thereby reducing impacts to this species. In addition, 

the effect would be short term and would have no impact to the population viability of voles. 

The potential for high-severity fire within grasslands would be slightly (1 percent) reduced with 

a greater reduction in ponderosa (34 percent) (fire ecology report). Decommissioning of roads 

means more snags would be available in the future within vole habitat. Springs (74) and 

ephemeral stream channel restoration (39 miles) would have short-term disturbance to 

vegetation limiting habitat for the vole; however vegetation would be expected to recovery 

within a year, increasing availability of food for small mammals over the long term, resulting in 

indirect beneficial impacts.

Alternative C adds 48,206 acres of grassland restoration treatments and restores larger 

grasslands such as Garland and Government Prairie where voles are known to occur.

In alternative D, the lack of prescribed fire after thinning treatments would deteriorate patterns 

of surface vegetation, as shrubs and other species adapted to fire decline (Huffman and Moore 

2004, Moir 1988). Landscape patterns and mosaics that would have been created or maintained 

with fire would have to be maintained mechanically. The lack of fire means no nutrient pulse 

into the system, further limiting understory response.

Cumulative Effects: Activities that impact the vole include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen 

regeneration, tornado rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. Past and 

ongoing grassland activities include 8,951 acres of prescribed fire and 2,034 acres of mechanical 

treatments. Short-term impacts added to similar impacts from nearby projects were considered. 

Implementation of other project activities could occur simultaneously, however, it is not 

anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. All alternatives could increase potential habitat 

quality and quantity and reduce risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. This positive 

effect would be combined with similar effects from activities such as implementation of the 

travel management efforts that may decrease the frequency of disturbance on the majority of 

potential roost sites, slightly counteracting the effects of utility line and road reconstruction and 

maintenance, and short-term disturbances from vegetation management and prescribed fire. 

Short-term and localized effects from mechanical thinning, temporary road construction, and 

prescribed fire would result in the temporary reduction of understory vegetation and soil 

compaction. This impact may combine with short-term cumulative impacts from localized 

dispersed camping, wildfire and wildfire suppression activities, ungulate grazing, and drought 

from climate change to alter availability of both food and cover for voles and temporarily 

displace voles in a limited area. Livestock are managed in systems designed to allow forage a 

chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative effects. However 

wild ungulates would continue to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the Navajo Mogollon vole, but 

are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 207

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Long-tailed 

Vole

The direct and indirect effects are the same as described for the Navajo Mogollon vole. 

Cumulative Effects: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered are listed in 

appendix 12 of the wildlife report and include projects within springs, seeps, riparian areas, and 

streams. Past activities within springs, riparian areas, and streams have been limited with 

mechanical treatments implemented on 11 springs, 50 acres of riparian areas, and 1.3 miles of 

riparian streams, and prescribed burning on 6 springs, 17 acres of riparian areas, and 2.8 miles of 

riparian streams. There are 44 springs within a half mile of the project boundary that may be 

improved through current and reasonably foreseeable projects that reduced tree densities and 

increased understory vegetation, improving functional condition. These projects would combine 

with this forest restoration project to improve habitat for long-tailed vole. Other past, present, 

and ongoing projects have implemented thinning on 2,304 acres and prescribed fire on 8,951 

acres in grasslands, improving habitats for long-tailed vole in the long term. The action

alternatives results in impacts that may combine cumulatively with other forest and nonforest 

activities including wildfire and wildfire suppression activities, livestock grazing, recreation, and 

increased temperatures and predicted vegetation shifts at higher elevations from climate change. 

All these activities result in impacts by affecting vole habitat and potentially directly affecting 

vole burrows. The action alternatives would have a much larger beneficial cumulative effect 

from meadow, grassland, and ponderosa pine restoration treatments. This change, combined 

with reduced motorized use within these areas, would result in less disturbance and 

fragmentation to vole habitat.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the long-tailed vole, but are

not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Dwarf Shrew Thinning and prescribed fire activities may disturb individual shrews, resulting in direct adverse 

effects. Using prescribed fire would result in the removal of cover and food. The effect would be 

short term. Meadows and open areas would rebound afterwards, with more vigorous herbaceous 

vegetation and healthier understory habitats. Activities would occur across the project area at 

different times; thereby reducing impacts to this species. There would be no effects to 

population viability of shrews. Spring and ephemeral channel restoration would improve 

riparian vegetation, increasing availability of food for small mammals over the long term, 

resulting in indirect beneficial impacts.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative activities such as implementing travel management are likely 

to decrease motorized use in grasslands and meadows, thus decreasing impacts to shrew habitat. 

This, combined with forest restoration activities, could open up more habitats or provide more 

contiguous swaths of grassland habitat key to supporting thriving small mammal populations. 

Short-term and localized effects from mechanical thinning, temporary road construction, and 

prescribed fire would result in the temporary reduction of understory vegetation. This impact 

may combine with short-term cumulative impacts from localized dispersed camping, wildfire 

and wildfire suppression activities, ungulate grazing, and drought from climate change to 

temporarily displace shrews in a limited area. Climate change is also expected to result in a 

higher frequency of high-severity wildfires (Marlon et al. 2009) and prolonged periods of 

drought (Furniss et al. 2010), which would also cumulatively contribute to decreases in 

vegetative ground cover.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the dwarf shrew, but are not 

likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Merriam’s 

Shrew 

The direct and indirect effects are the same as described for the dwarf shrew with the following 

additions. Indirect benefits could potentially result from restoring meadows encroached by pine 

trees and reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in the ponderosa pine forest 

resulting from fire exclusion. These efforts would aid in restoring openings and edge habitat 

within the forest and improving understory vegetation that would benefit Merriam’s shrew and 

their prey. Coarse woody debris would increase slightly in the short term and would continue to 

increase over the long term. Exclosures around restored spring and ephemeral channels would 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

improve riparian vegetation, increasing availability of food for small mammals over the long 

term, resulting in indirect beneficial impacts.

Cumulative Effects: Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in 

appendix 12 of the wildlife report and include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen regeneration, 

tornado rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. Cumulative activities such 

as implementing travel management are likely to decrease motorized use in grasslands and 

meadows, thus decreasing impacts to shrew habitat. This combined with forest restoration 

activities could open up more habitats or provide more contiguous swaths of grassland habitat 

key to supporting thriving small mammal populations. Short term and localized effects from 

mechanical thinning, temporary road construction, and prescribed fire would result in the 

temporary reduction of understory vegetation. This impact may combine with short-term 

cumulative impacts from localized dispersed camping, wildfire and wildfire suppression 

activities, ungulate grazing, and drought from climate change to temporarily displace shrews in a 

limited area. Development of private and State land has the greatest potential impact to shrew 

habitat.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the Merriam’s shrew, but are

not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Western Red 

Bat

In alternatives B, C, and D, thinning and prescribed fire could potentially disturb red bats if they 

are roosting in trees or hibernating among leaf litter. However, most prescribed fire would occur 

in the spring and fall and burn plans within a half mile of known roosts/hibernacula would be 

designed to limit smoke at critical times (April through July and mid-winter). Actions are 

expected to result in a slight short-term decrease in snags followed by an increase over the long 

term. This short-term loss of snags is not expected to affect the overall distribution of western 

red bats on the forest. Prescribed fire after mechanical treatments would result in the removal of 

cover and food; however, it is anticipated that meadows and open areas would rebound 

afterwards, with more vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats, thereby 

enhancing prey habitat. Restoring openings and edge habitat within the forest and improving 

understory vegetation would benefit western red bats and their prey. Moving these habitats 

toward historic conditions would also increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the risk 

of uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Spring and ephemeral channel restoration would 

improve riparian vegetation, increasing availability of food for prey species over the long term, 

resulting in indirect beneficial effects.

Cumulative Effects: These short-term impacts added to similar impacts from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable projects were considered. Implementation of other fuel 

reduction project activities could occur simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated to combine 

to cause a negative effect. Ungulate grazing within the project area reduces understory 

vegetation, which reduces plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. Generally, 

grazing systems are managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover 

from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. However, wild ungulates 

would continue to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition in meadows and 

around waters. 

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact the western red bat, but are

not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Spotted Bat Under alternative B, thinning and prescribed fire activities could potentially disturb spotted bats 

if they are roosting in rock crevices within the ponderosa pine treatment area. Prescribed fire

occurring when bats are rearing young (April through July) or in deep hibernation (mid-winter) 

can have negative effects on local populations. However, most prescribed burning would occur 

in the spring and fall and burn plans within a half mile of caves, mines, or cliff habitats would be 

designed to limit smoke at critical times (April through May and mid-winter). Other effects from 

prescribed fire are the same as described for the greater western mastiff bat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 209

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Alternative C treats the most acres and elicits the greatest response in understory and the 

greatest availability of food for bats.

Alternative D produces the lowest response of understory biomass of all the action alternatives 

limiting prey and resulting in indirect adverse effects to spotted bat.

Cumulative Effects: Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in 

appendix 12 of the wildlife report and include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen regeneration, 

tornado rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. Past and ongoing grassland 

activities include 8,951 acres of prescribed fire and 2,034 acres of mechanical treatments. There 

may be potential short-term disturbance to potential foraging and roosting habitat with long-term 

benefits. Short-term disturbance to bats would occur during thinning, hauling, and prescribed 

fire activities and may cause disturbance in nearby areas for the duration of the activity. These 

short-term impacts added to similar impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

mechanical vegetation management and fuels reduction projects were considered. 

Implementation of other vegetation management and fuel reduction project activities could 

occur simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. 

Ungulate grazing within the project area reduces understory vegetation, which reduces plant 

availability to adult insects, a primary food source.

Generally, grazing systems are managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance 

to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. However wild 

ungulates would continue to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition in 

meadows and around waters.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact spotted bat, but are not likely 

to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Allen’s 

Lappetbrowed Bat

In alternatives B, C, and D, thinning and prescribed fire activities could potentially disturb 

Allen’s lappet-browed bats if they are roosting in trees within the ponderosa pine and pinyonjuniper treatment areas. Prescribed fire occurring when bats are rearing young (April through 

July) or in deep hibernation (mid-winter) can have negative effects on local populations. 

However, most prescribed fire would occur in the spring and fall, and burn plans within a half

mile of known roosts/hibernacula or unsurveyed caves and mine shafts would be designed to 

limit smoke at critical times (April through May and mid-winter). Prescribed fire may also result 

in the loss of individual snags which could affect roosting bats; however, mitigation including 

managing for retention of all snags 18 inches in diameter and greater would reduce the impact. 

The alternatives are expected to result in a slight short-term increase in snags followed by a 

continuing increase over the long term. Prescribed fire would result in the removal of cover and 

food; however, it is anticipated that meadows and open areas would rebound afterwards, with 

more vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory habitats. The reduction of dense 

forest canopy and increased growth in the herbaceous vegetation on the forest floor would result 

in indirect beneficial impacts to bats. Forest conditions after treatment would improve bat 

habitat within the project area. Increasing diversity and density of understory vegetation 

provides habitat for prey population. Treatments would aid in restoring openings and edge 

habitat within the forest and improving understory vegetation that would benefit Allen’s lappetbrowed bats and their prey. Moving these habitats toward historic conditions would also 

increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity 

wildfire. Decommissioning of roads means more snags would be available in the future within 

Allen’s lappet-browed bat habitat providing more roosting structures. Spring and channel 

restoration would improve riparian vegetation, increasing availability of food for bats over the 

long term, resulting in indirect beneficial effects.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects are the same as described above for the western red bat 

with one addition. Implementation of the travel management decisions has reduced the number 

of roads near Allen’s lappet-browed bat roost locations.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact Allen’s lappet-browed bat, 

but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Pale 

Townsend’s 

Big-Eared 

Bat

The direct and indirect effects of alternatives B, C, and D are the same as described above for 

the western red bat with the following additions: The proposed decommissioning of roads means 

more snags would be available in the future within Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat providing 

more roosting structures. Spring and channel restoration would improve riparian vegetation, 

increasing availability of food for Noctuids and, therefore, Townsend’s big-eared bat over the 

long term, resulting in indirect beneficial impacts.

In alternative C, the overall increase in grassland treatments would have a beneficial impact on 

Townsend’s big-eared bat prey resulting in indirect beneficial effects.

Alternative D produces the lowest response of understory biomass of all the action alternatives 

limiting prey and resulting in indirect adverse effects to Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Cumulative Effects: Past and ongoing grassland activities include 8,951 acres of prescribed fire

and 2,034 acres of mechanical treatments. Short-term impacts added to similar impacts from 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects were considered. Implementation of 

other fuel reduction project activities could occur simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated 

to combine to cause a negative effect. Ungulate grazing within the project area reduces 

understory vegetation, which reduces plant availability to adult insects, a primary food source. 

Generally, grazing systems are managed on a rotational grazing system to allow forage a chance 

to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the potential for cumulative impacts. However, wild 

ungulates would continue to reduce vegetative understory and affect plant composition in 

meadows and around waters. Travel management implementation has reduced the number of 

roads near Townsend’s big-eared bat roost locations.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact pale Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Greater 

Western 

Mastiff Bat

Disturbance from thinning and prescribed fire activities would be highly unlikely. In addition, 

direct effects to roosting from project implementation are not anticipated. Prescribed fire would 

result in the removal of cover and food; however, it is anticipated that meadows and open areas 

would rebound afterwards, with more vigorous herbaceous vegetation and healthier understory 

habitats. Indirect effects would result from vegetation modification activities such as thinning 

and prescribed fire. These activities would disturb or remove understory vegetation, 

subsequently reducing availability to insects. These effects would be short term and would be 

minimized due to activities being temporally and spatially separated. Efforts would aid in 

restoring openings and edge habitat within the forest and improving understory vegetation that 

would benefit greater western mastiff bats and their prey. Moving these habitats toward historic 

conditions would also increase resilience of these habitats and decrease the risk of 

uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Exclosures around restored spring and ephemeral 

channels would improve riparian vegetation, increasing availability of food for bats over the 

long term, resulting in indirect beneficial impacts. 

Alternative C treats the most acres and elicits the greatest response in understory and the 

greatest availability of food for bats.

Alternative D produces the lowest response of understory biomass limiting prey and resulting in 

indirect adverse effects to greater western mastiff bat.

Cumulative Effects: Current ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in appendix 

12 of the wildlife report and include fuels reduction, forest health, aspen regeneration, tornado 

rehabilitation, and powerline development and maintenance. Past and ongoing grassland 

activities include 8,951 acres of prescribed fire and 2,034 acres of mechanical treatments. There 

may be potential short-term disturbance to potential foraging and roosting habitat with long-term 

benefits. Short-term disturbance to bats would occur during thinning, hauling, and prescribed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 211

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

fire activities and may cause disturbance in nearby areas for the duration of the activity. These 

short-term impacts added to similar impacts from other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects were considered. Implementation of other fuel reduction project activities could occur 

simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. Ungulate 

grazing within the project area reduces understory vegetation, which reduces plant availability to 

adult insects, a primary food source. Generally, grazing systems are managed on a rotational 

grazing system to allow forage a chance to recover from livestock grazing, reducing the 

potential for cumulative impacts. However wild ungulates would continue to reduce vegetative 

understory and affect plant composition in meadows and around waters. 

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact greater western mastiff bat, 

but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.

Reptiles

Narrowheaded 

Garter Snake

There would be no direct effects to narrow-headed garter snakes from mechanical treatment 

and/or prescribed fire. The project would not be directly treating the habitat. Treatments in 

subunits connected to these watersheds could potentially lead to increased sedimentation and/or 

ash flow into narrow-headed garter snake habitat (see aquatic species and watershed reports). 

However, this increase in sediment or ash over background levels would not have negative 

impacts on habitat for this species. Conversely, moving the forested uplands toward historic 

conditions would increase resilience of these systems and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic, 

high-severity wildfire. Protective stream buffer strips would be employed along the Sterling 

Canyon stream course for both alternatives B and C to reduce the risk of sediment and ash flow 

into Upper Oak Creek. Spring restoration would increase riparian vegetation increasing 

availability of food and reproductive sites for these species over the long term, resulting in direct 

beneficial effects to habitat. In alternative D, there would be no prescribed fire on slopes greater 

than 15 percent along the upstream portion of Oak Creek within subunit 3-5, eliminating the 

need for a protective stream course buffer along the entire length of Sterling Canyon.

Cumulative Effects: The area analyzed for cumulative effects for narrow-headed garter snake is 

subunit 3-5. No cumulative effects to narrow-headed garter snake would occur from 

implementing any of the alternatives, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future activities. Ongoing and foreseeable future projects include tornado rehabilitation and the 

Turkey Barney Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project. Implementation of other projects 

could occur simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated to combine to cause a negative effect. 

BMPs are implemented for all projects and would curtail soil erosion and minimize potential for 

inflow into potential narrow-headed garter snake habitat.

Effects Determination: Implementation of alternatives B, C, and D may impact narrowheaded garter snake, but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Plants

Arizona 

Bugbane 

Mitigation applicable to alternatives B, C, and D would protect shady, mesic microclimate 

needed for survival and reproduction and reduce risk associated with increased noxious or 

invasive weeds.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects boundary is the range of Arizona bugbane within 

the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. The time limit is from the year 2000 to present. Past impacts 

include grazing, recreation, wildfire, and natural disturbances such as flooding, drought, 

tornados, and mortality in overstory trees. Natural events have affected the habitat and 

distribution of Arizona bugbane in some areas. Ongoing and foreseeable vegetation projects 

have treatments similar to 4FRI. Impacts to ongoing and foreseeable impacts (vegetation 

projects, grazing) are mitigated by treatment design; therefore, the cumulative effects are 

nonsignificant.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Arizona 

bugbane but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Rusby 

Milkvetch 

Alternatives B, C, and D direct effects include the immediate loss of individual plants or 

population groups through management actions. In the long term, there would be benefits from 

reduced competition and increased amounts of sunlight and nutrients. Burning is a disturbance 

that can release nutrients, reduce plant competition, and increase the amount of available 

sunlight. Survey and mitigation would reduce the risk of increased noxious or invasive weeds 

and damage or loss from springs, channels, and road activities.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects boundary is the range of Rusby milkvetch which is 

confined to the volcanic fields of the San Francisco Peaks, approximately 1,152,000 acres 

(Priest et al. 2001). Only a portion of this area—the ponderosa pine forest—is suitable habitat. 

Several large wildfires have occurred in the project area; but cumulatively, this represents less 

that 5 percent of the available habitat. Implementation of travel management on both forests, 

combined with such actions as road decommissioning in this project, would reduce the impacts 

of vehicle traffic in the habitat of Rusby milkvetch. Implementation will continue in projects 

(such as Hart Prairie, Wing Mountain, Frenchy, and Pomeroy) in the range of Rusby milkvetch. 

Other actions including grazing and foreseeable trail construction (Mt. Elden, Dry Lake Hills) 

when combined with 4FRI would continue to occur in the range of Rusby milkvetch and 

continue to affect it. Cumulatively, none of these actions would lead to a trend toward Federal

listing.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Rusby 

milkvetch but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Arizona 

Leatherflower 

With mitigation, alternatives B, C, and D direct and indirect effects are similar to those for 

Rusby milkvetch.

Cumulative Effects: The temporal timeframe for cumulative effects is 2007 when the species 

was returned to the Southwestern Region’s sensitive species list after being absent from it for 

nearly 10 years. The cumulative effects boundary is the occupied habitat within the project 

boundary. Past actions such as grazing, fire suppression, wildfires, timber, recreation, and plant 

collecting have occurred and have contributed to existing conditions; however, effects of highseverity fire are unknown. Actions on nonforest lands may have affected the occurrence and 

distribution of Arizona leatherflower in other areas. Many areas in and near Flagstaff that 

provided potential habitat for the plants have been altered or developed, making the habitat no 

longer suitable. At least one population on private land was destroyed during a road realignment 

project. Implementation of travel management combined with project road decommissioning 

would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Arizona 

leatherflower but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Flagstaff 

pennyroyal 

With mitigation, the direct and indirect effects of alternatives B, C, and D are similar to those 

discussed for Rusby milkvetch.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects temporal timeframe is from 2000 to present. The 

spatial boundary is the range of Flagstaff pennyroyal in the project area including the areas 

roughly from Flagstaff, east to Marshall Lake and Fisher point, then south to the vicinity of 

Mountainaire, then to Lower Lake Mary on the Coconino NF, and a limited amount of habitat 

along the edge of Sycamore Canyon on the Kaibab NF. Activities on nonforest lands in suitable 

habitat have reduced about 10 percent of the total historical range. The species occurs in several 

recently analyzed or implemented fuels reduction projects (including Kachina 2003, 

Mountainaire 2006, Elk Park 2007, see botany report for complete information). These projects 

covered about 75 percent of the total acreage of the potential habitat managed by the Coconino 

NF. These projects did not adversely affect the abundance or distribution of Flagstaff pennyroyal 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 213

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

and when combined with the effects of this project, would not adversely affect this species. 

About 831 acres of prescribed fire would occur (foreseeable) in the Skunk project (Coconino 

NF) and 20,197 acres would occur on the Eastside project (Coconino NF). In past and 

foreseeable projects, effects to Flagstaff pennyroyal were mitigated or would be mitigated to 

nonsignificant levels. Other ongoing and foreseeable actions include dispersed recreation and 

new motorized trails. When combined with 4FRI actions, there would be no measurable 

cumulative impact. Any impact would be nonsignificant. Implementation of travel management 

decisions on both forests, when combined with such actions as road decommissioning in this 

project, would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of Flagstaff pennyroyal.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Flagstaff 

pennyroyal but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Arizona 

sneezeweed 

With mitigation, direct and indirect effects to Arizona sneezeweed are similar to those for Rusby 

milkvetch. 

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects temporal timeframe is from 1999 (when the species 

was added to the Southwestern Region’s sensitive species list) to present. The boundary includes 

the range of Arizona sneezeweed within the project area which is roughly from the Mormon 

Lake area southward to the project boundary. Past natural events such as persistent drought that 

began in 1996 and lasted for over 10 years probably affected the abundance and distribution of 

the species due to its affinity for moist soil. The drought compounded such effects as fire 

severity and impacts from grazers seeking water sources, which decreased in availability during 

the drought (see “Climate Change” section for additional information). Alteration of habitat 

through diversion of water for use to water animals might have also affected the habitat. There 

have been no past fuels reduction projects in the area where Arizona sneezeweed was 

documented during surveys. There are no past cumulative effects from actions associated with 

fuels reduction projects such as tree removal, burning, or road construction and maintenance 

activities, which are also part of 4FRI. Other ongoing and foreseeable actions include dispersed 

recreation and new motorized trails. When combined with 4FRI actions, there would be no 

measurable cumulative impact. Any impact would be nonsignificant. Implementation of travel 

management decisions on both forests, when combined with such actions as road 

decommissioning in this project, would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of 

Arizona sneezeweed.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Arizona 

sneezeweed but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Sunset Crater 

Beardstongue 

In alternatives B, C, and D, a few units would be treated using the grassland restoration or 

grassland mechanical prescriptions. In those units, the effects would be similar to mechanical 

treatment for other species such as Rusby milkvetch. See table 12 in the report which documents 

site locations within project treatment units by alternative.

Cumulative Effects: The temporal timeframe for cumulative effects is from 1973 (when the 

effects of fire to Sunset Crater beardtongue were first noted by a former Coconino NF wildlife 

biologist) to present. In 1992, a tornado occurred within the habitat and a subsequent salvage 

sale occurred. Monitoring in 1996 found no adverse effects from the storm or the salvage sale. 

Two fuels reduction projects (Eastside, 2006 and Jack Smith/Schultz, 2006) are ongoing but are 

not directly affecting the species due to the small portions of the habitat affected and actions are 

limited prescribed fire. Several large wildfires have occurred in the habitat: Burnt Fire (1973), 

Wild Bill Fire (1993), Hochderffer (1996), Cinder Hills Fire (2009), and Schultz Fire (2010). 

The Schultz Fire caused severe environmental damage including flooding and soil erosion, some 

of which extended into the habitat. Post-fire rehabilitation actions affected some of the potential 

habitat. The long-term effects on habitat and native plants include noxious or invasive weed 

invasion and continued disturbance of the habitat. The cinder hills area that contains most of the 

habitat is heavily used for recreation (ongoing activity). The Schultz Fire Sediment Reduction 

Project (2012) is currently being analyzed. Indirect effects include an ongoing source of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

disturbance for an indefinite period of time. Continued growth in Doney Park could possibly 

decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available on nonforest lands. Several utility corridors 

are present in the potential habitat. The ongoing and foreseeable construction, expansion, and 

maintenance of these corridors would result in loss of individuals along the corridor routes. 

Given the baseline condition, ongoing and foreseeable projects/activities, when combined with 

the 4FRI actions that would affect habitat, would not significantly impact the habitat or the 

species.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Sunset Crater 

beardtongue but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Flagstaff 

beardtongue 

The direct and indirect effects of alternatives B, C, and D to Flagstaff beardtongue are similar to 

those for Rusby milkvetch with one exception: There are no documented occurrences of 

Flagstaff beardtongue in areas being analyzed for spring and channel restoration so there would 

be no direct or indirect effects from those actions.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects temporal timeframe is from 1999 to present. This 

represents the length of time that Flagstaff beardtongue has been on the Southwestern Region’s

sensitive species list. The cumulative effects area is the project boundary. Past fuels projects 

occurred in approximately 10 percent of the cumulative effects area and did not adversely affect 

the abundance or distribution of the species. The total acreage of several large fires that have 

occurred within potential habitat is about 10,500 acres which represents less than 10 percent of 

the potential habitat. Severe wildfires can potentially destroy plants and alter habitat, but the 

effects of these fires on Flagstaff beardtongue and its habitat are unknown. Impacts from 

ungulate grazing in certain areas include past and present loss of individual plants and alteration 

of habitat through trampling and compaction. Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that 

occurs in the habitat. Several utility corridors are present in potential habitat. Construction, 

expansion, and maintenance of these corridors would result in loss of individuals along the 

corridor routes. Implementation of travel management decisions on both forests, when combined 

with such actions as road decommissioning in this project, would reduce the impacts of vehicle 

traffic in the habitat. Past, present and foreseeable actions, when combined with 4FRI actions, 

would have no adverse effects in the short or long term because they would not lead to a 

significant decrease in habitat or number of plants present in the project area. Effects 

Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Flagstaff beardtongue

but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Blumer’s 

dock 

Alternatives B, C, and D’s effects from mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and road related 

actions are similar to those described for Rusby milkvetch but are somewhat less important to 

this species since it is dependent on wet areas for its survival. Direct effects of spring and 

channel restoration would include deaths of individual plants or population groups during 

implementation. Management actions such as digging, soil disturbance, and related activities 

associated with spring restoration may impact individual plants if they are present on the site. 

These risks would be mitigated by surveying and avoiding plants. Restoration work for springs 

and channels would benefit the habitat and provide areas for natural generation or reintroduction 

(see specialist report for examples of past projects where habitat has been improved). The 

alternatives would reduce fire risk to many understory plants including Blumer’s dock. The 

potential for noxious or invasive weeds would be mitigated (see appendix C of the DEIS). 

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects temporal timeframe is from 1991—when the 

nearby Tonto NF prepared a management plan for Blumer’s dock—to the present. Persistent 

drought in the northern Arizona area that began in 1996 and lasted for over 10 years probably 

affected the abundance and distribution of Blumer’s dock due to its affinity for wet areas. The 

drought compounded such effects as fire severity and impacts from grazers. Several utility 

corridors are present in the potential habitat of Blumer’s dock. The presence of these corridors 

provides corridors for dispersal of noxious or invasive weeds along the utility corridor and in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 215

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

adjacent forested areas. These past events have formed the baseline for the current existing 

condition. Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in certain areas of the habitat. 

Management activities that were analyzed as part of the Hart Prairie project (2010) will continue 

to be initiated including several activities in or near the Hart Prairie Preserve and Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area. Ongoing activities include construction and/or reconstruction of several 

enclosures that will provide refugia for Blumer’s dock. Construction, expansion, and 

maintenance of utility corridors would result in loss of individuals along the corridor routes. 

When alternatives B, C, and D activities are combined with ongoing and foreseeable activities, 

the result is expected to have minor but beneficial effects to the habitat.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Blumer’s dock 

but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Bebb’s 

Willow 

With mitigation, alternatives B, C, and D’s direct and indirect effects for Bebb’s willow on the 

Coconino NF are similar to those for Rusby milkvetch. There are no documented locations of 

Bebb’s willow within the project area on the Kaibab NF, but Bebb’s willows may be present in 

some areas such as around springs and channels. These areas would be surveyed before 

implementation and mitigation measures and design features would be incorporated as needed 

into alternatives B, C, and D actions. With survey and mitigation as needed, the direct and 

indirect effects on Bebb’s willow on the Kaibab NF are the same as described above.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects boundary is the Coconino NF portion of the project 

area. The temporal timeline is from 1987 (with publication of the “Coconino National Forest 

Land and Resourece Management Plan”) to the present. Cumulative effects to Bebb’s willow on 

the Kaibab NF were excluded from this discussion because there are no documented occurrences 

in the Kaibab portion of the project and Bebb’s willow has no special status on the Kaibab NF. 

Fern Mountain Botanical Area (186 acres) is dominated by Bebb’s willow and represents a 

unique riparian community. Approximately 1,300 Bebb’s willow plants occur in the Hart Prairie 

area in the botanical area and the Hart Prairie Preserve. Past management actions, including 

establishment of the botanical area and restoration actions conducted by The Nature 

Conservancy and the Forest Service, represent the baseline (existing condition) for the species. 

Management activities that were analyzed as part of the Hart Prairie project (2010) will continue 

to be initiated including several activities in or near the Hart Prairie Preserve and Fern Mountain 

Botanical Area. Ongoing activities include construction and/or reconstruction of several 

enclosures that would provide refugia for Bebb’s willow, which would improve the distribution 

of age classes. The Apache Maid Allotment analysis, which is a concurrent but unrelated 

analysis, includes the Railroad Spring area. Spring restoration sites in the project may provide 

locations and opportunities for Bebb’s willow restoration. Given the baseline condition, ongoing 

and foreseeable projects, when considered with 4FRI actions, would be beneficial to habitat and 

populations.

Effects Determination: Alternatives B, C, and D may impact individuals of Bebb’s willow 

but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Forest Plan 

Amendments 

– All Species

Alternatives B, C, and D each contain nonsignificant forest plan amendments to address issues 

related to MSO and northern goshawk issues on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. These 

amendments focus on allowing treatments in MSO PACs and northern goshawk habitats that are 

currently outside the authority of the current plans. These amendments are needed to accomplish 

the objectives of restoration as defined in the 4FRI. The expected results are increased resiliency 

and forest health in the treated areas as well as reduction in fire risk in these areas.

With design features and actions mitigated, no amendment is expected to change the analysis for 

sensitive plants or for noxious or invasive weeds. Minor but insignificant changes to the amount 

of canopy cover and interspaces would result. These changes could result in minor but 

insignificant increases in growing space for all understory plants including sensitive plants and 

noxious or invasive weeds. The results would be minor increases in resources for sensitive 

plants and a slight increase in opportunities for new occupation but these effects are minor and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Species Alternatives B, C, and D Environmental Consequences 

(Direct, Indirect, Cumulative)

discountable. There may also be a minor but insignificant increase in disturbance resulting from 

treatments that would occur because of these treatments, but the increase would not significantly 

increase the risk of noxious or invasive weed invasions.

Amendment 2 (alternative C only) to the Kaibab NF plan: The effects to sensitive plants and 

noxious or invasive weeds resulting from the change in management of this area would be the 

same as those to similar areas discussed in the report. The area was analyzed in the 1988 plan as 

a potential RNA but the process to designate and establish the RNA was never completed. As a 

result, restrictions to the area currently remain in place. The restrictions on management 

activities in the area that result from the RNA designation would no longer apply when the 

revised forest plan is completed and implemented. In the draft revised forest plan (2012), the

area would be managed as the Garland Prairie Management Area. 

The treatments proposed in alternative C would benefit the understory vegetation community in 

the RNA by reintroducing natural processes and reducing competition from trees to grassland 

plants and would achieve the goal of restoring fire. Management actions in alternative C would 

move the area toward this condition, which would be complementary to the objectives of the 

Kaibab NF plan (1988) and 4FRI.

Northern Goshawk 

This analysis addresses policy requirements and responds to key issues raised by the public 

including Issue 2, conservation of large trees, and Issue 3, canopy cover and post-treatment 

landscape openness in the context of impacts to goshawk and post-treatment viability. Metrics 

used to evaluate impacts are described in environmental consequences. The analysis utilizes and 

incorporates by reference the silviculture report (McCusker 2013).

Surveys

Most of the ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine/Gambel oak, and mixed-conifer habitats on the 

Coconino NF have been surveyed according to Southwestern Region protocol for the northern 

goshawk. Northern goshawk territories have been monitored every year since 1989, with an 

average of 43 territories monitored from 1991 to 2001. As of 2008, there were 70 known 

territories on the Coconino NF. The occupancy rate of territories has declined over the last 11

years. However, the goals of monitoring are to gain information on territory occupancy and 

reproduction; data collected on the forest are not designed to detect changes in population trends. 

Data for the Kaibab NF show a similar decline in occupied territories using data from 1996 to 

2007. There are currently 68 goshawk territories on the southern portion of the Kaibab NF, 

including 36 goshawk PFAs on the Kaibab NF portion of the project area. However, if future 

weather patterns produce good precipitation, the population could stabilize. Continued reduction 

of forest stem density and basal area should ameliorate the stochastic nature of weather by 

reducing the threat of large-scale, high-severity fire, thereby helping stabilize the population. See 

the wildlife report for monitoring details and the history of goshawk occupancy on the forests. 

Summary of Habitat Condition 

The existing and desired conditions for forest structure and vegetation features relevant to prey 

species in goshawk habitat are summarized in chapter 1. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 217

Scales of Analysis

An analysis at three spatial scales is required by the Coconino and Kaibab NF forest plans for 

goshawk habitat. Evaluations of post-fledgling family area (PFA) habitat (used for nesting, 

breeding, and primary foraging during the nesting season) and landscapes outside of the PFA 

(referred to as LOPFA which is used primarily for foraging), was conducted at the project, 

subunit, and RU levels. An additional fourth scale of analysis was conducted at the landscape 

scale, and it included all of the ponderosa pine within the project area. 

Nest areas are the smallest unit of northern goshawk habitat and potentially the most limiting. Just 

over one-quarter of nest areas fall within either protected or restricted MSO habitat. The PFA area

immediately surrounding the nest area provides the closest foraging opportunities as well as 

alternate nesting sites. Similar to the nest area, about the same portion of the PFA, slightly less 

than one quarter, is considered MSO habitat. 

Project Level Analysis

Within nest areas, PFA, and dispersal PFA (dPFA), all of the acres within the respective goshawk 

strata were included in the calculations for VSS and changes to VSS within these areas. For the 

LOPFA, only those acres that were managed to northern goshawk prescriptions were included, 

which would be about 78 percent of the acres. 

The existing ratios of VSS within nest areas/PFA/dPFA at the project level are distributed with 

about four-fifths or 87 percent of the areas in the mid-seral VSS 3 and VSS 4. This is about 

double the acreage desired for mid-seral structure in goshawk habitat. Additionally, young seral 

forest is about a level of magnitude below desired conditions for the distribution of VSS classes 

across the landscape.

Restoration Unit (RU) Level of Analysis 

The VSS distribution for the RU level is thoroughly analyzed in detail in the silvicultural report. 

The VSS distribution is dominated by VSS 3 through VSS 6 in uneven-aged PFAs and LOPFAs. 

Eighty to 100 percent of the habitat is VSS 3 and 4 in even-aged PFA and LOPFA. The only 

exception is RU 5 where 64 percent of the LOPFA is in VSS 3 and 4. Over a quarter of the 

LOPFA in RU 5 is VSS 1 and the remainder is in VSS 5 and 6. 

Landscape Level of Analysis

For the landscape perspective, the ponderosa pine vegetation is addressed, encompassing the 

entire treatment area where changes would occur if the 4FRI is implemented. The existing 

condition is not that different from the other goshawk strata analyzed above.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

There would not be any direct effects from the alternative. Individual forest projects would 

continue to move some acreage toward desired conditions, but the overall landscape would 

change slowly. VSS distribution within PFAs would develop more slowly, relative to the action 

alternatives, and move toward more VSS 5 and 6 as trees develop and mature. As modeled in the 

silviculture analysis, this would minimally meet forest plan direction for late successional habitat 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

with a combined total of 37 percent of the landscape by 2050. There would be no groups of VSS 

1 or 2 by 2050, limiting regeneration to individual trees scattered under existing canopies. 

With few openings and a relatively continuous canopy, “volunteer” regeneration would not be 

likely to support a continuous flow of trees into larger size classes. This would not promote a 

sustainable distribution of age classes, would not provide the variety of habitats used by key 

goshawk prey species, and so overall would not meet the desired conditions (see “Vegetation 

Analysis”). By 2050, overall VSS ratios would approach forest plan direction in even-aged 

LOPFA habitat, but uneven-aged stands would not regenerate stands of VSS 1 and 2, and VSS 3 

and 4 would remain high occupying about 50 percent of the LOPFA. 

Alternative A would not improve prey species habitats associated with springs, along ephemeral 

channels, or in aspen, meadows, grasslands, and savannas. Use of any open roads would continue 

the current level of disturbance occurring within PFAs and would not improve the quality of the 

adjacent habitat.

Alternatives B, C, and D

In total, the Coconino NF has 45,415 acres of occupied goshawk habitat. Alternative B would 

treat about 38 percent of the forestwide occupied habitat, alternative C would treat about 39 

percent, and alternative D about 33 percent. On the Kaibab NF there are 124,938 acres of 

occupied goshawk habitat forestwide. The main difference in forestwide occupied habitat 

between forests is largely due to the Kaibab NF hosting over 20 years of goshawk research on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District. All alternatives would treat about 11 percent of the forestwide 

occupied goshawk habitat on the Kaibab NF. 

Forest Structure

All action alternatives would move the VSS balance in PFA habitat toward desired conditions 

through treatments designed to enhance goshawk habitat. Alternatives B, C, and D would have 

similar results in moving the LOPFA toward balancing VSS ratios immediately post treatment 

(2020) by increasing the amounts of VSS 5 and 6 by primarily treating the abundant VSS 3 and 4 

size classes. By 2050, all action alternatives would create more VSS 5 and 6 than is described in 

the forest plans, but compared to the no action alternative, the treatments would move goshawk 

habitat in a trajectory toward desired conditions. Prescribed burning in VSS 3 and 4 under 

alternatives B and C would move more acres into VSS 5 and 6 than would occur in alternative D. 

Post-treatment conditions would change the VSS distribution and promote an interspersion of 

regeneration groups and interspace, leading to future uneven-aged development within the 

existing forest. Under all scenarios, VSS 5 and 6 would exceed 50 percent of the landscape by the 

year 2050. 

Analysis at the Subunit, Restoration Unit, and Landscape Scale

When analyzed at the subunit scale, the changes in scale did not change the patterns of habitat 

response to proposed treatments. The analysis of VSS changes among the subunits is discussed in 

the silviculture report. The existing conditions of VSS are listed in tables by subunit and RU in 

appendix 9 of the wildlife report.

At the RU scale, the trends in changes are similar as are the reasoning for the resultant cause and 

effect discussed above. The VSS distribution for the RU level is thoroughly analyzed in detail in 

the silvicultural report. See appendix 10 of the wildlife report for pie charts displaying the relative 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 219

percent of VSS by RU by alternative over time. These provide a visual picture of the relative 

changes to goshawk nesting habitat among the RUs.

At the landscape scale, the existing condition is again similar to the other goshawk strata analyzed

above. The changes to the VSS distribution for ponderosa pine vegetation in the treatment areas 

without consideration of special species status are similar to those seen at the various scales 

discussed above.

Alternatives B and C show essentially identical changes at this scale. The changes in percent VSS 

are attributed to removing the VSS 3 and 4 size trees through mechanical harvest and prescribed 

fire and leaving the large trees that comprise VSS 5 and 6. Alternative D shows slightly less 

increase in VSS 5 and 6, or acres of large trees, due to the lack of prescribed fire in the dense VSS

3 and 4 size classes occupying the majority of the area.

Prey Habitat

The vegetation analysis describes the changes in the physical features associated with prey 

species habitat in ponderosa pine including CWD, logs, and snags. All alternatives would meet 

forest plan direction for CWD by providing 5 to7 tons per acre by the year 2050 (table 41). 

Alternative D would provide the most CWD and alternatives B and C the least as a result of the 

differences in the use of prescribed fire. Logs would be below forest plan guidance, but the action 

alternatives would provide as many or more logs per acre than the no action alternative. While 

numbers varied by alternative, PFA habitat would generally support more logs per acre than 

LOPFA. Snags would increase over time but be below forest plan direction in all alternatives. 

However, alternative A would provide the least amount of snags, alternatives B and C the most, 

and results from alternative D would be in the middle regardless of which goshawk habitat is 

modeled (PFA or LOPFA). See the wildlife report for the detailed analysis of effects to prey 

species.

The main difference among the action alternatives is prescribed fire. Alternative D would have 

considerably less prescribed fire smoke when compared to alternatives B and C. First-entry burns 

would be expected to produce more smoke, and results from second-entry burns would be 

expected to better simulate the evolutionary environment of goshawks in the Southwest. The firstentry burns would be expected to produce elevated levels of smoke due to the uncharacteristic 

levels of litter and woody debris that have accumulated since the late 1800s. The direct effect of 

this could be smoke inhalation by incubating adults or nestlings, or extended absence of the adults 

during brooding or when the chicks are very young. This could potentially lead to loss of egg 

viability, loss of nestlings, or permanent damage to the developing lungs of goshawk chicks.

Alternatives B and C would move the most acres of PFA habitat toward desired conditions with 

the combination of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Alternative D would move slightly 

fewer acres toward desired conditions.

Other Activities in Alternatives B, C, and D 

Roads 

An impact associated with the mechanical treatments would be the use of temporary roads for 

vehicles and equipment. About 32 miles of temporary roads would be constructed within 25 

known occupied PFAs and 8.7 miles would be within 8 dispersal PFAs: 19 PFAs (26 percent) 

would have less than 1 mile of temporary road construction; 11 PFAs (15 percent) would have 1 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

to 2 miles of temporary road construction; and 3 PFAs (4 percent) would have more than 2 miles 

of temporary road construction. Forty PFAs (55 percent) in the project area would not have 

temporary road construction. About 8 miles of temporary roads would be constructed within PFA 

nest areas. Two PFAs would have more than 1 mile of temporary road construction. 

The effects of temporary road construction to goshawk PFA and nest habitat include removal of 

trees and understory vegetation along the road alignment. During the use of the temporary road, 

the habitat quality of the narrow linear configuration of the road would not be good for goshawks 

or prey species. Implementing breeding season timing restrictions would eliminate disturbance 

impacts to nesting goshawks. After the road is closed and obliterated, the disturbed area would 

provide habitat in the created opening for early seral stage prey species discussed earlier.

Relocating road segments would account for about 0.7 mile within nine PFAs. Four nest areas 

would be impacted by about 0.2 mile of reconstructed road. The impacts from reconstructed roads 

are similar to those associated with temporary roads. Reconstruction would move the disturbance 

associated with the road use from the original location to the new location. Given the probable 

close proximity of the old and new alignments, the degree of disturbance between the two 

locations would probably not be discernible. With each mile of road impacting approximately 3 

acres, about 2 acres of habitat would be impacted by reconstructed roads. No acres would be 

impacted in alternative A.

About 517 miles of temporary roads would be constructed and decommissioned when treatments 

are complete (no new permanent roads would be constructed). Up to 40 miles of existing, open 

road would be reconstructed. About 30 miles of this reconstruction would be to improve roads for 

hauling harvested materials (primarily widening corners to improve turn radiuses) and about 10 

miles would consist of relocating roads out of stream bottoms. Relocated roads would include 

rehabilitation of the moved road segment. 

A total of 73 PFAs would have some sort of hauling occurring on roads in the PFA. Implementing 

a breeding season timing restriction for activities occurring within goshawk PFAs would 

eliminate most of the disturbance potential to goshawks from all of the proposed activities (see 

design features in appendix C for specific timing restriction language). The breeding season 

timing restriction is taken directly from the forest plan and would limit human activity within the 

PFA from March 1 through September 30 each year. If territories are monitored and found to be 

unoccupied, the breeding season timing restriction may be suspended for that particular season. 

Timing restrictions would prevent hauling during the breeding season in all but three PFAs. 

The three PFAs without timing restrictions on hauling are in an area with some of the highest 

projected amounts of project activity and associated hauling traffic. Depending on active nest site 

selection and occupancy, timing, volume of materials hauled in a season, and other factors related 

to operations, logging truck traffic could potentially pass through up to two of the above three 

PFAs during the nesting season. Goshawk surveys would be done before hauling to evaluate 

occupancy and location of active nests in these three PFAs.

Noise disturbance from logging trucks was monitored for nesting goshawks in a study 

coordinated between the Kaibab NF, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Army, and a private 

sound consultant. Results from this field based, controlled experiment found no evidence of 

negative effects from truck noise. Observed goshawk response to logging truck noise was limited 

to, at most, looking in the direction of the hauling road (Grubb et al. 2012). However, this study 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 221

measured the effects of a single truck on nesting goshawks. Thousands of truck trips may cause 

more pronounced behavior, depending largely on the distance to the nest and any intervening 

topography and vegetation. Disturbance from hauling will vary based on which nest site is 

selected during the time that hauling occurs. Therefore, road disturbance, even with thousands of 

truck trips, may cause little or no disturbance. Conversely, an active nest could occur in an area 

where past road noise has been minimal, but which could support high levels of road use that 

particular year. In summary, hauling may cause no noise disturbance to goshawks, but there 

would be potential to disrupt reproduction and rearing of young by, at most, one to two pairs of 

goshawks. Reducing potential disturbance to somewhere between zero to 2 PFAs out of 73 total 

PFAs meets forest plan direction “to minimize disturbance in the nest area.” 

In alternatives B, C, and D, decommissioning 904 roads would improve the quality of the habitat 

in those areas where the roads are decommissioned. While the physical structure and features of 

the habitat for goshawks and their prey may not measurably change along the former road 

alignment, eliminating disturbance along the roadway would be expected to improve the quality 

of habitat beyond the immediate area of the road for the goshawk and its prey species. With each 

mile of open road impacting approximately 3 acres of habitat, about 2,712 acres of forested 

habitat may be impacted. This would not have a discernible impact to goshawk habitat across the 

landscape. Implementing these activities under the breeding season timing restrictions would 

eliminate disturbance to nesting goshawks. 

Dust abatement treatments would occur in selected areas where private land ownership concerns 

could arise. Eight road segments have been identified for dust abatement, totaling less than 7 

miles in length. The average dust abatement treatment length would be about 0.9 mile, ranging 

from 0.3 to 2.5 miles. Treatments would consist of MgCl2 or lignin. The effectiveness of MgCl2 is

related to humidity levels (Batista et al. 2002); therefore, lignin would probably be used most 

often in the 4FRI landscape. Treatments would be temporary, only occurring on particular road 

segments in association with hauling. None of the proposed treatment segments would be near 

open water. Because of the limited application spatially and temporally, and because locations do 

not include sensitive areas such as open water, dust abatement is not expected to result in 

measurable effects to wildlife or their habitat.

Springs, Ephemeral Channels, and Aspen

Improving springs and restoring ephemeral channels in alternatives B, C, and D would improve 

prey species habitat in those areas where the treatments occur. Implementing breeding season 

timing restrictions would alleviate disturbance to goshawks during the nesting season during 

activities. Adaptive management actions in alternative C does not change the percent of habitat 

treated.

Mechanical treatments in aspen in the action alternatives would improve the quality of the aspen 

habitat for goshawk prey species including the red-naped sapsucker. There would be greater 

improvement in alternatives B and C, which implement prescribed fire with the mechanical 

treatments, than in alternative D which only uses mechanical treatments in aspen. Alternative A 

would not improve any acres of aspen habitat and would, therefore, maintain the current decline 

in aspen habitat. Implementing the breeding season timing restrictions for any activities within 

PFAs would eliminate disturbance to nesting goshawks. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Other Activities 

The effects of MSO prescriptions on goshawk habitat in the action alternatives are reflected in the 

vegetation data already analyzed. MSO prescriptions would impact approximately 22 percent of 

the goshawk habitat across the landscape. MSO habitat likely supports lower densities of rodent 

prey species than would habitat treated to meet goshawk habitat direction in the forest plan (see 

appendix 8 in the wildlife report). However, MSO treatments in protected and target and 

threshold habitats would be similar to the desired conditions for goshawk nesting habitat. 

Treatments in MSO restricted other habitat should improve prey habitat. Because goshawks are 

generalist species, MSO based management treatments would not be in conflict with maintaining 

goshawk territories in MSO habitat. 

For the research proposals in alternative C, impacts of the silvicultural prescriptions have been 

reflected in the vegetation data already analyzed. Constructing 15 weirs that would impact 3 acres 

would not have a discernible impact to goshawk habitat at the project level. Impacts to goshawks 

or their prey species habitat would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the locations of the 

individual projects. Alternatives B and D would not have any impacts to changing the physical 

structure or quality of the goshawk habitat from this facet of the project as it is not included in 

these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Most past vegetation treatment projects after 1996 have been designed to move the landscape 

toward the desired conditions for northern goshawks. Those same projects have also included 

breeding season timing restrictions for activities within goshawk PFAs. This project would 

contribute to the cumulative effects of moving the landscape toward desired conditions for the 

northern goshawk.

Alternatives B and C contribute most to moving the landscape toward desired conditions. 

Alternative D does slightly less to move toward desired conditions. While some desired physical 

features may be achieved in alternative A, it does not contribute to the cumulative effects of 

moving the landscape toward desired conditions. See appendix 12 of the wildlife specialist report 

for the projects and their size, location, objectives, and wildfires addressed as part of cumulative 

effects

Other Protected Species

Golden Eagle

Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). 

Because of their resemblance to bald eagles, project design features and mitigation have been 

developed (see “Environmental Consequences”).

Sightings of golden eagles have been documented, and winter surveys are conducted annually on 

the Flagstaff district (Coconino NF) and Williams district (Kaibab NF) within the project area. 

Bald eagle annual winter surveys also document golden eagle sightings. There are 18 confirmed

golden eagle nests representing 17 nesting areas in the project area (see wildlife report). There are 

11 additional potential nests but they have not yet been confirmed. Potential and confirmed 

nesting golden eagles within the project are located in subunits 1-1, 1-3, 1-6, 2-0, 3-1, 3-4, 3-5, 4-

1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 5-2 and 6-2. Golden eagles often nest in areas of high rabbit populations. Golden 

eagles are well known for subduing large prey; however, most of their diet consists of ground 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 223

squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs. Potential foraging habitat within the treatment area is 

primarily 48,774 acres of grassland.

Environmental Consequences – All Alternatives

In alternative A, there are no direct effects to golden eagles. There would be no meadows treated 

within the project area and trees would continue to encroach, reducing potential habitat for small 

mammals and consequently golden eagles. Dense forest conditions would still occur, slowing 

growth rates and limiting development of larger diameter (≥18 inch) trees important for nesting 

and roosting as well as maintaining high fire hazard potential that would continue to place 

potential breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat at risk with respect to stand-replacing fire.

The effects for alternatives B, C, and D reflect design features and mitigation as described for the 

bald eagle (see appendix C in the DEIS). In alternatives B, C, and D, mechanical treatments, 

prescribed fire, road construction and decommissioning, and the hauling of timber and other 

restoration activities may cause visual or auditory disturbance that would be localized, of short 

duration, and low intensity. Effects of mechanical treatments would not be expected to 

substantially interfere with normal feeding behavior. Acres of prescribed burning and mechanical 

treatment would result in short-term effects and would be minimized due to activities being 

spatially and temporally separated. 

The effects of alternative C are similar to those of alternatives B and D. Alternative C restores 

more acres of potential foraging habitat, and the added mechanical treatments within grasslands 

would maintain and improve more foraging habitat. There are no nests or roosts within the 

additional grassland treatments or research areas; therefore, no additional effects would occur 

from disturbance. Alternative D has the same effects as alternative B with one exception. The lack 

of prescribed fire after thinning treatments would affect surface vegetation patterns as shrubs and 

other species adapted to fire continue to decline (Huffman and Moore 2004, Moir 1988). The loss 

of habitat effectiveness would indirectly lead to adverse effects for golden eagles by limiting prey

habitat. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

The area analyzed for cumulative effects for the golden eagle is the project area and a 1⁄2-mile 

buffer around the project boundary. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are listed in 

appendix 12 of the wildlife report and past projects have implemented thinning on 2,304 acres 

and prescribed fire on 8,951 acres in grasslands.

In alternative A, continued pine tree encroachment into grasslands and private development in 

grasslands would result in a cumulative impact along with such activities as grazing and high 

impact recreational use to limit meadow and grassland habitats. Prescribed fire on 98,800 acres in 

adjacent projects may result in short-term impacts to habitat, but these are not expected to result 

in long-term cumulative impacts and are expected to be localized in nature. This alternative 

would result in the most stress on meadow and grassland habitats and, thus, would have the 

greatest negative contribution to potential golden eagle habitat. 

In alternatives B, C, and D, there would be no effect to nesting eagles; however, there may be 

potential short-term disturbance to potential foraging habitat with long-term benefits. Short-term 

disturbance to foraging eagles would occur during thinning, hauling, temporary road construction, 

and prescribed fire activities and may cause eagles to forage in nearby areas for the duration of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

the activity. Other activities occurring that may have similar effects include temporary 

disturbances caused by prescribed fire (104,750 acres) and thinning (104,990 acres) in adjacent 

projects, or effects to roosting habitat from utility infrastructure development and maintenance 

(500 acres). These short-term impacts added to similar effects from other activities were 

considered. Implementation activities of other fuel reduction project activities could occur 

simultaneously; however, it is not anticipated it would combine to cause a negative effect. 

Determination of Effects for All Alternatives

The proposed treatments and activities would not result in take as defined in the Eagle Act for 

golden eagles. All nests would be protected from disturbance during project implementation. 

Project design features would mitigate potential for disturbance from noise or smoke to nesting 

golden eagles. Project activities would not substantially interfere with foraging behavior. 

Restoration treatments would improve foraging habitat and reduced potential of high-severity fire 

impacting nest locations.

Forest Plan Amendments – Sensitive and Other Protected Species

Not incorporating these amendments would affect the habitat of most sensitive species addressed 

in this report (see the wildlife report for the complete analysis). The MSO amendments would 

allow managing for lower tree densities and basal area, creating canopy gaps, creating and

sustaining more large pine and oak trees in the long-term, more large snags through time, and 

increasing understory response. Not incorporating these amendments would allow: 

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer big pine and oak trees, and increased 

fire risk for wildlife using forested habitats in 18 PACs (related to the proposed 

mechanical treatments in all action alternatives);

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, lower crown base height, and increased fire 

risk in 56 PACs (related to the proposed prescribed fire treatments in alternative C only);

• fewer PACs attaining the desired post-treatment condition due to sequencing of 

treatments through time (all action alternatives);

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer canopy openings, and fewer large pine 

and oak trees in restricted habitat that would be managed as threshold habitat where no 

resident MSOs exist on the Kaibab NF (all action alternatives); 

• tree densities maintained well above the minimum basal area stand values recommended 

in the MSO recovery plan across all PACs, target, and threshold habitats (i.e., not using 

the best science available; alternative C only); and

• understory conditions would continue to decline across MSO habitat, affecting prey 

habitat and likely decreasing the total prey biomass for raptors and carnivores.

Not including the amendment related to management of canopy cover and open reference 

conditions within ponderosa pine forest would prevent the ability to include rooting space 

necessary to sustain dense groups of trees, reduce forest densities and associated forest health 

(measured by the percent maximum SDI), and prevent the restoration of grasslands and savanna. 

This would decrease the ability to maintain dense groups of trees along with shrub and 

herbaceous vegetation, decreasing foods for herbivores, granivores, insectivores, and so for 

carnivores as well. Grassland species and dispersing individuals of prey species (primarily 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 225

rodents and lagomorphs) that aid in maintaining prey populations in forested habitat would be 

reduced as trees continue to encroach upon open habitats. Simultaneously, habitat for species that 

depend on closed canopy would gradually increase. 

Not managing the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area for the grassland 

characteristics it was intended to support would result in similar dynamics, i.e., the development 

of forest structural characteristics used by some species while reducing habitat effectiveness for 

open habitat species. 

Currently, many of the sensitive species depend on habitats or habitat elements related to canopy 

openings. Existing closed-canopy forests limit or eliminate many of the necessary habitat 

components needed by these species. The desired condition of closed canopy tree groups 

interspersed with open rooting space that supports herbaceous vegetation would provide key 

habitat components for these species of status as well as species adapted to closed-canopy forests. 

Achieving this situation is the reason for the amendments and this interspersion of habitats, which 

is a fundamental part of the desired condition, would not be attained without incorporating the 

amendments into the action alternatives.

Forest Service Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Table 72 summarizes (with rationale) the MIS species not analyzed. Table 73 summarizes the 

MIS species analyzed. The table provides the current forestwide habitat and population trends. 

The effects analysis is organized by habitat type with habitat trends presented in narrative and 

population trends summarized in tables with some exceptions. Both habitat and population trends 

are displayed in tabular form for snags in ponderosa pine (hairy woodpecker), late-seral aspen 

and snags in aspens (red-naped sapsucker), and early-seral aspen and pinyon-juniper (mule deer). 

Aquatic MIS are analyzed separately in the “Aquatics Species” section of this chapter. 

Table 72. MIS not analyzed in the analysis

Management 

Indicator Species

Key MIS Habitat 

Component 

Indicator

Comments

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Kaibab NF only 

Riparian Only an indicator of stream quality in North Canyon Creek 

on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab NF. Outside of 

project area.

Mexican Spotted Owl

(Strix occidentalis 

lucida)

Late-seral mixed 

conifer and sprucefir

There is no mixed conifer or spruce-fir habitat being treated 

in the proposed treatment area.

Red Squirrel

(Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus) 

Late-seral mixed 

conifer and sprucefir

There is no mixed conifer or spruce-fir habitat being treated 

in the proposed treatment area.

Yellow-breasted Chat

(Icteria virens) 

Late-seral, lowelevation, riparian 

habitat

(< 7,000′) 

There are 6 miles of proposed ephemeral stream channel 

restoration with riparian vegetation on the Coconino NF; only 

a fraction of this habitat occurs below 7,000 feet elevation. 

Riparian vegetation within these ephemeral channels does not 

include woody vegetation. No stream restoration with 

riparian habitat would occur on the Kaibab NF. The proposed 

restoration would not remove woody riparian vegetation. 

Thinning and prescribed fire could increase water yield for up 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

Management 

Indicator Species

Key MIS Habitat 

Component 

Indicator

Comments

to 5 years. This would not affect the late-serial riparian 

habitat.

Lucy’s Warbler

(Vermivora luciae) 

Late-seral, lowelevation, riparian 

habitat 

(< 7,000′) 

There are 6 miles of proposed ephemeral stream channel 

restoration with riparian vegetation on the Coconino NF; only 

a fraction of this habitat occurs below 7,000 feet elevation. 

Riparian vegetation within these ephemeral channels does not 

include woody vegetation. No stream restoration with 

riparian habitat would occur on the Kaibab NF. The proposed 

restoration would not remove woody riparian vegetation. 

Thinning and prescribed fire could increase water yield for up 

to 5 years (see watershed report). This would not affect the 

late-seral riparian habitat.

Lincoln’s Sparrow

(Melospia lincolnii) 

Late-seral, highelevation riparian 

habitat

(> 7,000′) 

There are 6 miles of proposed ephemeral stream channel 

restoration with riparian vegetation on the Coconino NF. 

Riparian vegetation within these ephemeral channels does not 

include woody vegetation. No stream restoration with 

riparian habitat would occur on the Kaibab NF. The proposed 

restoration would not remove woody riparian vegetation. 

Thinning and prescribed fire could increase water yield for up 

to 5 years (see water quality report). This would not affect the 

late-seral riparian habitat.

Cinnamon Teal

(Anas cyanoptera) 

Wetlands There are no proposed activities within wetland habitat. The 

6 miles of proposed ephemeral stream restoration with 

riparian habitat is not teal habitat. Thinning and prescribed 

fire could increase water yield for up to 5 years. This would 

not affect the wetland habitat.

Table 73 displays MIS analyzed in this analysis, key habitat component indicator for each 

species, and the habitat within the treatment area. It summarizes current forestwide habitat and 

population trends, acres of forestwide habitat, and acres and percent of habitat analyzed in the 

project area. Data and best available science utilized for this analysis is described below. 

The presence of species carried forward for analysis was determined by surveys conducted on the 

forest, surveys conducted by the Arizona Department of Game and Fish, and the FAAWN 

database (Patton 2011). Ten MIS whose distribution on the forest encompasses part or all of the 

treatment area were included in the effects analysis. The analysis is based also on the forest plan 

and projected changes in acreage of quality habitat under all of the alternatives.

Data and Best Available Science

MIS and the habitats they represent are listed in the most recent Kaibab NF (USDA 2010a) and 

Coconino NF (USDA 2002) forestwide management indicator species reports. As the MIS 

analysis was conducted throughout 2012, information from the draft report (Overby, pers. comm. 

2012) was used in association with discussions with the Coconino NF biologist. A thorough 

review of the best available science, including the biology, ecology, and effects of management 

on individual species was included in the 2010 update of the Kaibab NF forestwide MIS report. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 227

Information on species, their population trends, and habitat trends presented in the MIS 

forestwide reports are incorporated by reference. 

Determining MIS presence and associated trend calls included data from the annual songbird 

surveys conducted on both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Surveys were initiated on the Kaibab 

NF in 2005 and on the Coconino NF in 2006. Initially each forest conducted its own survey 

effort, starting the season with 2 weeks of field training. The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

took over the sampling effort and associated data analysis in 2007. One component of the bird 

survey effort is a sympatric tree squirrel survey. Initial results from this effort were included in 

the Abert’s squirrel effects analysis.

Population status and trend updates for all game species were provided by the AGFD for the 4FRI 

(see appendix 6 in the wildlife report) and incorporated into the analysis. Goshawk surveys are 

completed annually on both the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF. The goshawk field survey effort 

was coordinated between the two national forests in 2011 because of the scale of the restoration 

project and 6,485 acres were surveyed. The coordinated effort will continue in 2013. 

The forest vegetation simulator (FVS) tree growth model was used to determine changes in forest 

stand dynamics (for more information on FVS, see the silviculture report). This information was 

used for changes in seral stages for ponderosa pine stands. Where possible, data on forestwide 

vegetation was taken from the forestwide reports for MIS species. If acreages were not available, 

potential natural vegetative type (PNVT) acreage was used. PNVT acreage for different 

vegetation types was developed for each forest as part of the forest plan revision process. The 

vegetation model (VDDT) from forest plan revision was used to determine available acres of 

early and late seral ponderosa pine habitat at the forestwide scale for the Coconino NF.

Table 73 and table 74 summarize MIS habitat and population trends by alternative. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 73. MIS analyzed and forestwide current habitat and population trends

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Key MIS 

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator

Habitat 

Component 

Analyzed

Current Forestwide 

Habitat Trend

Current Forestwide 

Population Trend

Acres of Key 

MIS Habitat 

Forestwide

Acres/Percent of 

Habitat Analyzed 

within Project Area

CNF KNF CNF KNF CNF KNF CNF KNF

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

Riparian See aquatics

MIS section 

 

Northern Goshawk Late-seral 

ponderosa pine

Ponderosa pine Decreasing Increasing Inconclusive Decreasing 80,773 200,000 56,615/70% 27,921/14%

Pygmy Nuthatch Late-seral 

ponderosa pine

Ponderosa pine Decreasing Increasing Stable Stable to 

declining 

80,773 200,000 56,615/70% 27,921/14%

Turkey Late-seral 

ponderosa pine

Ponderosa pine Decreasing Increasing Increasing Increasing 80,773 200,000 56,615/70% 27,921/14%

Abert’s Squirrel

(Coconino NF) 

/Tassel-eared 

Squirrel

(Kaibab NF)

Early seral 

ponderosa pine

Ponderosa pine Stable Stable Inconclusive Stable 152,836 40,000 14,525/10% 7,411/ 18%

Rocky Mountain 

Elk 

Early seral 

ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer, 

and spruce-fir

Ponderosa pine Stable Stable Stable to 

decreasing 

(latest AGFD 

data)

Stable to 

decreasing 

(latest 

AGFD data)

152,836 40,000 14,525/10% 7,411/ 18%

Hairy Woodpecker Snags in 

ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir 

Snags in 

ponderosa pine

Declining Increasing Stable or 

slightly 

increasing

Stable 900,426 681,158 322,772/

36%

189,407/ 

28%

Red-naped 

Sapsucker

Late-seral 

aspen and 

snags in aspens

Aspen and 

aspen snags 

Stable(s)/ 

Decreasing 

(l) 

Stable Stable to 

Increasing 

(s)/Stable to 

Decreasing (l)

Stable (s)/ 

Decreasing 

(l) 

10,000 28,500 875 to 1,083/ 

9% to 11%

387 to 389 

acres/1%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 229

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Key MIS 

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator

Habitat 

Component 

Analyzed

Current Forestwide 

Habitat Trend

Current Forestwide 

Population Trend

Acres of Key 

MIS Habitat 

Forestwide

Acres/Percent of 

Habitat Analyzed 

within Project Area

CNF KNF CNF KNF CNF KNF CNF KNF

Mule Deer Early seral 

aspen and 

pinyon-juniper

Aspen Declining Declining Declining Stable to 

Increasing

10,000 28,500 875 to 1,083/

9% to 11%

389/1%

Pinyon juniper Stable Stable 630,000 657,900 10,786/1% 12,560/1%

Juniper Titmouse Late-seral 

pinyon-juniper, 

and snags in 

pinyon-juniper

Pinyon-juniper 

and snags in 

pinyon-juniper

Stable Increasing Stable to 

slightly 

decreasing

Decreasing 630,000 657,900 10,786/1% 12,560/1%

Pronghorn Early and late 

seral grasslands

Grassland Stable to 

Declining

Stable Declining to 

Stable (AGFD

data) 

Declining to 

Stable 

(AGFD data)

260,050 216.000 22,672/9% 25,871 to 

26,152/12%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 74. MIS habitat and population trends by habitat and alternative

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Late Seral Ponderosa Pine—Coconino NF

Northern 

Goshawk 

In the long term (30 years), 

alternative A would result in an 

11.5% increase in quantity of habitat 

with increased VSS 5 and 6 but the 

quality of the habitat would decrease 

as canopies closed and tree densities 

increased.

A net increase in quantity of habitat 

with a decrease in quality of habitat 

coupled with some decreases in 

amounts of prey species’ habitat and 

unknown to decreasing population 

trends for MIS prey species would be 

expected to have static impact on the 

population trend for goshawk.

Alternatives B and C would produce the largest 

increase in the quantity of late seral ponderosa pine 

habitat as well as the most improvement in the quality 

of habitat for goshawks and their prey species as all 

elements move toward desired conditions. Alternative 

D increases habitat quantity and improves habitat 

quality for goshawk and its prey species less than 

alternatives B and C.

A net increase in quantity of habitat coupled with an 

increase in quality of habitat combined with increased 

habitat components for prey species and positive 

changes to prey species’ habitat and increasing 

population trends would change population trend for 

the goshawk in the long term to increasing. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would likely continue the 

stable forestwide population trend in the short term 

while moving toward an increasing trend.

Pygmy 

Nuthatch

Alternative A would not result in an 

immediate change to the quantity or 

quality of habitat and would likely 

continue the current population trend 

of stable in the short term. With the 

likelihood of wildfires, the long-term 

population trend could change to 

decreasing.

Alternatives B, C, and D would protect nesting habitat 

and increase the quantity and quality of late-seral 

habitat over a large area of ponderosa pine habitat on 

the forest. Alternatives B, C, and D would likely 

continue the stable forestwide population trend in the 

short term while moving toward an increasing trend. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would likely change the 

forestwide population trend to increasing in the long 

term due to increasing in late-seral habitat over a large 

area of ponderosa pine habitat on the forest. 

Alternatives B and C would have similar impacts on 

the species, and alternative D would not be as 

beneficial.

Turkey Alternative A would not result in an 

immediate change to the quantity or 

quality of habitat. Alternative A 

would likely continue the current 

forestwide population trend as 

increasing in the short term. With the 

likelihood of wildfire, loss of Gambel 

oak to shading from pines, and lack 

of understory development, the long

term forestwide population trend 

could change to decreasing. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would increase quantity and 

quality of the habitat. Population trend is influenced 

by other habitat factors than development of late-seral 

ponderosa pine, with the main factor being the State

hunt structure. Alternatives B, C, and D would likely 

continue the forestwide population trend as increasing 

in both the short and long term; alternative D would 

not be as beneficial as alternatives B and C. 

Late Seral Ponderosa Pine—Kaibab NF

Northern 

Goshawk 

Habitat quantity would increase by 

11.5% in VSS 5 and VSS 6 but the 

quality of the habitat would 

deteriorate as canopies closed and 

tree densities increased and potential 

Alternatives B and C would produce the largest 

increase in the quantity of late-seral ponderosa pine 

habitat as well as the most improvement in the quality 

of habitat for goshawks and their prey species as all 

elements move toward desired conditions. Alternative 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 231

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

understory production decreased.

A net increase in quantity of habitat 

with a decrease in quality of habitat 

coupled with some decreases in 

amounts of prey species’ habitat and 

unknown to decreasing population 

trends for MIS prey species would 

result in a static impact on the 

population trend for the goshawk.

D increases habitat quantity and improves habitat 

quality for goshawk and its prey species less than 

alternatives B and C.

A net increase in quantity of habitat coupled with an 

increase in quality of habitat combined with increased 

habitat components for prey species and positive 

changes to MIS prey species’ habitat and increasing 

population trends would be expected to have positive 

impact on the population trend for goshawk in 

alternatives B, C, and D.

Pygmy 

Nuthatch

Alternative A would not result in an 

immediate change to the quantity or 

quality of habitat and would likely 

continue the current population trend 

of stable to declining in the short 

term. With the likelihood of largescale, stand-replacing wildfires the 

forestwide population trend could 

change to decreasing in the long term.

With the likelihood of large-scale 

stand-replacing wildfires in the 

future, it is possible that the long term 

forestwide population trend could 

change to decreasing.

Alternatives B, C, and D increase the quantity and 

quality of late-seral habitat over a large area of 

ponderosa pine habitat on the forest. Alternatives B, 

C, and D would likely continue the stable forestwide

population trend in the short term while moving 

toward an increasing trend. Alternatives B and C 

would have similar impacts on the species, and 

alternative D would not be as beneficial.

Alternatives B, C, and D would likely change the 

forestwide population trend to increasing in the long 

term due to increases in late-seral habitat over a large

area of ponderosa pine habitat on the forest. 

Alternatives B, C, and D continue the stable 

forestwide population trend in the short term while 

moving toward an increasing trend in the long term 

due to an increase in late-seral habitat over a large 

area of ponderosa pine habitat on the forest.

Turkey Alternative A would likely continue 

the current forestwide population 

trend for the turkey as increasing in 

the short term. With the likelihood of 

wildfires, loss of Gambel oak to 

shading from pines, and lack of 

understory development, it is possible 

that the population trend could 

change to decreasing.

Alternatives B, C, and D would likely continue the 

forestwide population trend as increasing in both the 

short and long term. The population trend is 

influenced by other habitat factors than the 

development of late-seral ponderosa pine, with the 

main factor being the State hunt structure. Alternative 

D would not be as beneficial as alternatives B and C.

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D

Early Seral Ponderosa Pine – Coconino NF 

Elk Alternative A would not result in an 

immediate change to the quantity or 

quality of habitat used by elk. Forage 

would decrease in the long term due 

to closure of the forest. Alternative A 

would likely continue the decrease in 

forestwide elk population trend due to 

removal of habitat components for elk 

in both short and long term and the 

Alternatives B, C, and D would improve other forest 

habitat beside the increase of early-seral habitat for 

elk and would change the current decreasing 

population trend to increasing. However, population 

trends are influenced more by hunting than by forest 

management and they would remain as a decreasing 

trend until desirable population levels are determined.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

current trend of the AGFD efforts to 

decrease the local herd size on the 

forest.

Abert’s 

Squirrel

Alternative A would continue to 

provide habitat for the short term. 

Long term, the unnatural stand 

densities would reduce habitat quality 

and quantity. Alternative A would not 

change the current stable, forestwide

Abert’s squirrel population trend in 

the short term but in the long term, 

would change the trend to decreasing

due to the threat of high-severity fire 

in overly dense, continuous stands of 

forest.

In the short term, the habitat quality could be reduced, 

however, in the long term tree growth and increased 

canopy connectedness would improve habitat. 

Alternatives B, C, and D could have short-term 

impacts that could change the forestwide population 

trend to decreasing in the short term since the project 

area includes approximately 41 percent of the 

ponderosa pine habitat on the forest. For the long 

term, alternatives B, C, and D would likely change the 

forestwide population trend to an increasing trend. 

These habitat trends are based on other habitat 

components than early-seral ponderosa pine habitat.

Early Seral Ponderosa Pine – Kaibab NF

Elk Alternative A would not result in an 

immediate change to the quantity or 

quality of habitat used by elk. Forage 

would decrease in the long term due 

to closure of the forest. Alternative A 

would likely continue the decrease in 

forestwide elk population trend due to 

removal of habitat components for elk 

in both short and long term and the 

current trend of the AGFD efforts to 

decrease the local herd size on the 

forest. Alternative A would likely 

continue the decrease in forestwide

elk population trend due to the 

removal of habitat components for elk 

in both short and long term, and the 

current trend of the AGFD efforts to 

decrease the local herd size on the 

forest.

Alternatives B, C, and D would improve other forest 

habitat beside the increase of early-seral habitat for 

elk and would change the current decreasing 

population trend to increasing. However, population 

trends are influenced more by hunting than by forest 

management, and they would remain as a decreasing 

trend until desirable population levels are determined.

Tassel-eared 

Squirrel 

Alternative A would continue to 

provide habitat for the short term. 

Long term the unnatural stand 

densities would reduce habitat quality 

and quantity. Alternative A would not 

change the current stable forestwide

Abert’s squirrel population trend in 

the short term, but in the long term 

could shift the trend to decreasing due 

to the overly dense stands and chance 

for large-scale removal of habitat 

from fires in the long term.

In the short term, the habitat quality could be reduced, 

however, in the long-term tree growth and increased 

canopy connectedness would improve habitat. 

Alternatives B, C, and D could have short-term 

negative impacts, but it is not known if that would 

change the forestwide population trend to decreasing

in the short term since the project only includes 

approximately 37 percent of the ponderosa pine 

habitat on the forest. However, for the long term, 

alternatives B, C, and D would likely change the 

forestwide stable population trend to an increasing 

trend. These habitat trends are based on other habitat 

components than early-seral ponderosa pine habitat.

Snags in Ponderosa Pine – Coconino NF

Hairy Alternative A would increase the The three action alternatives are designed to restore 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 233

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Woodpecker amount of late-seral stands in the long 

term. The risk of a large-scale 

wildfire is high. Alternative A would 

not change the short-term forestwide

habitat or population trend for the 

hairy woodpecker since it continues 

the current level of activities on the 

forest. In the long term, it is likely the 

forestwide habitat and population 

trends would be stable to decreasing 

for the species due to the threat of 

large stand-replacing wildfires.

ponderosa pine stands closer to historical range of 

variation. This results in forest structure that includes 

large trees and an abundance of snags. Alternatives B, 

C, and D would likely continue the stable forestwide

habitat and population trend in the short term, with 

decreased snag habitat in the short term. In the long 

term, alternatives B, C, and D would change the 

forestwide habitat and population trend to increasing. 

Snags in Ponderosa Pine – Kaibab NF

Hairy 

Woodpecker

Alternative A would increase the 

amount of late-seral stands in the long 

term. The risk of a large-scale 

wildfire is high. Alternative A would 

not change the short-term forestwide

habitat or population trend for the 

hairy woodpecker since it continues 

the current level of activities on the 

forest. In the long term, it is likely the 

forestwide habitat and population 

trends would be stable to decreasing 

for the species due to the threat of 

large stand-replacing wildfires.

The three action alternatives are designed to restore 

ponderosa pine stands closer to historical range of 

variation. This results in forest structure that includes 

large trees and an abundance of snags. Alternatives B, 

C, and D would likely continue the stable forestwide

habitat and population trend in the short term, with 

decreased snag habitat in the short term. In the long 

term, alternatives B, C, and D would change the 

forestwide habitat and population trend to increasing. 

Late-seral Aspen and Snags in Aspens – Coconino NF

Red-naped 

Sapsucker 

Alternative A would continue the 

declining habitat trend. Alternative A 

would likely not change the 

decreasing red-naped sapsucker 

forestwide population trend in the 

short term, and it would likely remain 

decreasing in the long term. 

Approximately 11 percent of the 

aspen on the district would not be 

treated and would likely continue to 

decline or be lost to wildfires.

Alternatives B, C, and D would change the forestwide

habitat trend to stable in the short term and increasing 

in the long term. In the long term, the forestwide 

population trend would likely either be stable or 

increasing as a result of treating about 9 to 11 percent

of the aspen habitat on the forest. Nevertheless, it will 

take time to recruit large trees and snags into the 

system.

Late-seral Aspen and Snags in Aspens – Kaibab NF

Red-naped 

Sapsucker 

The forestwide MIS assessment 

(USDA 2010a) shows a likely 

decreasing habitat and population 

trend in the future without aspen 

restoration. In the short term, 

alternative A would not change the 

current stable forestwide trends for 

red-naped sapsuckers or their habitat. 

However, it would change both the 

forestwide habitat and population 

trends to decreasing in the long term.

Alternatives B, C, and D would continue the 

forestwide population and habitat trend as stable. 

While they would improve habitat in the areas 

proposed for treatment, this would only represent 1 

percent of the aspen on the forest and would not 

change the population or habitat trend for the rednaped sapsucker in the short or long term.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Early-seral Aspen and Pinyon-Juniper – Coconino NF

Mule Deer Alterative A would not change the 

forestwide habitat trend in aspen or 

pinyon-juniper habitat in the short or 

long term. Early-seral aspen would 

continue to decline due to the lack of 

recruitment. The pinyon-juniper 

habitat would remain stable because 

the project would only affect 2

percent of the habitat on the forest. 

Alternative A would not change the 

mule deer population trend in the 

short term because the population 

trend is due mainly to hunting and not 

management actions. There is 

potential for a decreasing trend in the 

long term due to the potential of 

large-scale, stand-replacing wildfires.

Alternatives B, C, and D would promote the 

development and recruitment of aspen early-seral 

habitat. This could change the forestwide habitat trend 

toward stable in the short and long term because the 

alternatives would improve 9 to 11 percent of the 

aspen forestwide. The alternatives would not change 

the current stable forestwide habitat trend for pinyonjuniper habitat due to the fact that less than 1 percent 

of the pinyon-juniper habitat forestwide would be 

affected. The action alternatives would likely keep the 

mule deer forestwide population trend at stable both 

in the short and long term due to improvement in 

other habitat components that would benefit the deer, 

however, forestwide population trends are more 

affected by hunting than forest management.

Early-seral Aspen and Pinyon-Juniper – Kaibab NF

Mule Deer Alterative A would not change 

forestwide habitat trend in either 

aspen or pinyon-juniper habitat in the 

short or long term. Early-seral aspen 

would continue to decline due to the 

lack of recruitment. The pinyonjuniper habitat would continue to be 

stable due to the fact that the project 

would only affect 1 percent of the 

habitat on the forest. Alternative A 

would not change the mule deer 

forestwide population trend in the 

short term, since the population trend 

is due mainly to hunting and not 

management actions. There is 

potential for a decreasing population 

trend forestwide in the long term due 

to the potential of large-scale standreplacing wildfires. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would promote the 

development and recruitment of aspen early-seral 

habitat, but would not change the short and long term 

early-seral forestwide habitat because it would only 

affect about 1 percent of the aspen forestwide. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would not change the current 

stable forestwide habitat trend for pinyon-juniper 

habitat due to the fact that less than 1 percent of the 

pinyon-juniper habitat forestwide would be affected. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would likely move the mule 

deer forestwide population trend to stable both in the 

short and long term due to improvement in other 

habitat components that would benefit the deer, 

however, forestwide population trends are more 

affected by hunting than forest management.

Late Seral Pinyon-Juniper and Snags in Pinyon-Juniper Habitat – Coconino NF

Juniper 

Titmouse 

Alterative A would not change 

forestwide habitat or population trend 

in the short or long term. The trends 

would continue to be stable due to the 

fact that the project would only affect 

1 percent of the habitat on the forest.

Alternatives B, C, and D would help reduce tree 

density and develop understory components in 

pinyon-juniper stands, but would not change the short 

or long term forestwide habitat or population trends 

from stable because less than 1 percent of the pinyonjuniper habitat forestwide would be affected.

Late Seral Pinyon-Juniper and Snags in Pinyon-Juniper Habitat – Kaibab NF
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 235

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Juniper 

Titmouse 

Alterative A would not change 

forestwide habitat trend in pinyonjuniper habitat in the short or long

term. Pinyon-juniper habitat would 

continue to be stable due to the fact 

that the project would only affect 1 

percent of the habitat on the forest.

Alternative A would not change the 

juniper titmouse forestwide

population trend in the short or long 

term.

Alternatives B, C, and D would help reduce the tree 

density and develop understory components in the 

pinyon-juniper stands but it would not change the 

short or long term forestwide habitat or population 

trends from stable because less than 1 percent of the 

pinyon-juniper habitat forestwide would be affected. 

Early and Late Seral Grasslands – Coconino NF

Pronghorn Alternative A would not change the 

current stable trend for pronghorn 

populations and forestwide habitat in 

the short term, but in the long term, it 

would change both forestwide habitat 

and population trends to decreasing 

due to the continued decline in 

grassland conditions from conifer and 

shrub encroachment. 

Alternatives B and D would keep the forestwide

grassland habitat trend at stable to increasing 

depending on how much conifer and shrub are 

removed. The alternatives would likely have the 

forestwide pronghorn population trend as stable to 

increasing but the forest population trends are largely 

influenced by hunting and drought. Alternative C 

would change the forestwide grassland habitat trend 

to increasing in both short and long term due to the 

removal of trees in current grasslands and the 

restoration of historical grasslands. It would keep the 

forestwide pronghorn population trend as stable to 

increasing. 

Early and Late Seral Grasslands – Kaibab NF

Pronghorn Alternative A would not change the 

current stable trend for pronghorn 

populations and forestwide habitat in 

the short term, but in the long term it 

would change both forestwide habitat 

and population trends to decreasing 

due to the continued decline in 

grassland conditions from conifer and 

shrub encroachment. 

The alternatives would likely keep the forestwide

pronghorn population trend as stable to increasing but 

the population trends for pronghorn are largely 

influenced by hunting and drought. Alternative C 

would change the forestwide grassland habitat trend 

to increasing in both the short and long term.

Forest Plan Amendments

Not incorporating the amendments would affect the habitat of most of the MIS addressed in this 

report (see the wildlife specialist report for the complete analysis). The MSO amendments would 

allow managing for lower tree densities and basal area, creating canopy gaps, creating and 

sustaining more large pine and oak trees in the long term, more large snags through time, and 

increasing understory response. Not incorporating these amendments would allow: 

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer big pine and oak trees, increased fire 

risk for wildlife using forested habitats in 18 PACs (related to the proposed mechanical 

treatments in all action alternatives);
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, lower crown base height, and increased fire 

risk in 56 PACs (related to the proposed prescribed fire treatments in alternative C only);

• fewer PACs attaining the desired post-treatment condition due to sequencing of 

treatments through time (all action alternatives);

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer canopy openings, and fewer large pine 

and oak trees in restricted habitat that would be managed as threshold habitat where no 

resident MSOs exist on the Kaibab NF (all action alternatives);

• tree densities maintained well above the minimum basal area stand values recommended 

in the MSO recovery plan across all PACs, target, and threshold habitats (i.e., not using 

the best science available; alternative C only); and

• understory conditions would continue to decline across MSO habitat, affecting prey 

habitat and likely decreasing the total prey biomass for raptors.

Not including the amendment related to management of canopy cover and open reference 

conditions within ponderosa pine forest would prevent the ability to include rooting space 

necessary to sustain dense groups of trees, reduce forest densities and associated forest health 

(measured by the percent maximum SDI), and prevent the restoration of grasslands and savanna. 

This would decrease the ability to maintain dense groups of trees along with shrub and 

herbaceous vegetation, decreasing foods for herbivores, granivores (seed-eaters), insectivores, 

and so for carnivores as well. Grassland species and dispersing individuals of prey species 

(primarily rodents and lagomorphs) that aid in maintaining prey populations in forested habitat 

would be reduced as trees continue to encroach upon open habitats. Simultaneously, habitat for 

species that depend on closed canopy would gradually increase. 

Not managing the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area for the grassland 

characteristics it was intended to support would result in similar dynamics, i.e., the development 

of forest structural characteristics used by some species while reducing habitat effectiveness for 

open habitat species. 

Currently, many of the MIS depend on habitats or habitat elements related to canopy openings or 

early seral conditions. Existing closed-canopy forests limit or eliminate many of the necessary 

habitat components needed by these species. The desired condition of closed canopy tree groups 

interspersed with open rooting space that supports herbaceous vegetation would provide key 

habitat components for these species of status as well as species adapted to closed-canopy forests. 

Achieving this situation is the reason for the amendments. This interspersion of habitats, which is 

a fundamental part of the desired condition, would not be attained without incorporating the 

amendments into the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects for Management Indicator Species

The affected environment for cumulative effects varies by species (table 75). The analysis 

includes the combined impacts of all activities within the area as evaluated by each alternative. 

The effects of projects that already have been implemented were used to help describe current 

conditions of the project area and will not be discussed in this section. Ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable activities are listed in the “Cumulative Effects” section in the wildlife report. 

Cumulative effects can be an integral part of the effects analysis for wildlife and are discussed for 

each species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 237

Table 75. Area of analysis for cumulative effects by species

Area of Analysis Species Reason for Selection

Within analysis area Pygmy nuthatch, turkey, 

Abert’s squirrel, hairy 

woodpecker, red-naped 

sapsucker, juniper titmouse

Abert’s squirrel use limited areas centered on their 

nest trees. Birds may move to other areas, but their 

nesting habitat is the most limiting factor for these 

species. 

1⁄2-mile around 

analysis area

Goshawk The 1⁄2-mile buffer takes into account potential 

disturbance activities for these species found within 

the analysis area.

Game Management 

Unit (GMU)

Elk, mule deer, pronghorn These species have wider mobility; GMUs are 

designed to encompass herd movements.

Alternative A

Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The cumulative effects of these treatments under the 4FRI “no action” alternative would improve 

the habitats of goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, turkey, hairy woodpecker, elk, mule deer, and Abert’s 

squirrel in the long term. Movement corridors and savannah treatments incorporated into 

ponderosa pine on the Kaibab NF would benefit pronghorn by creating forage and movement 

corridors. Aspen treatments would have limited effects to red-naped sapsuckers in the short term, 

but should improve habitat in the long term. Firewood gathering would affect the goshawk, 

pygmy nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, and juniper titmouse by removing 

snags and logs needed for nesting or prey species. Because only a small amount of pinyon-juniper 

habitat will be treated, impacts to populations of titmice are not expected. The proposed activities 

could benefit pronghorn locally by creating openings to support browse and improve landscape 

permeability. Right-of-way maintenance would benefit species that use open habitat like 

pronghorn, elk, and turkey by keeping liner strips of grassland open across the forest. These areas 

could also support prey species for goshawks. Right-of-way maintenance can also remove snags, 

logs, shrubs, and large trees, negatively affecting species tied to these habitat features such as the 

pygmy nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, and mule deer. Development on private lands, particularly in 

the grassland and savanna habitats, would reduce habitat quantity and quality and affect 

movement corridors for pronghorn, deer, and elk. Additionally, the exurban development and 

additional training ranges on the Navajo Army Depot would likely limit use by, and movement of, 

deer and elk in many of these areas.

In summary, the following cumulative effects apply to the MIS for both the Coconino and Kaibab 

NFs:

• For the goshawk and pronghorn, the improvement of habitat across the southern part of 

the forest would not change the forestwide habitat trend, but would help stabilize 

forestwide population trends.

• The forestwide habitat trend for the pygmy nuthatch would be improved by thinning 

projects that retain and enhance the large tree component within the ponderosa pine 

forest. This may help the forestwide population trend to stabilize.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

238 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• The tassel-eared squirrel, mule deer, elk, red-naped sapsucker, wild turkey, hairy 

woodpecker, and juniper titmouse forestwide population and habitat trends would not 

change.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Kaibab NF 

The planned thinning and burning of 35,790 to 50,041 acres of ponderosa pine habitat would help 

reduce small tree densities and help move habitat toward historical stand structures. These 

treatments would have the same benefits discussed in alternative A, but when added to the 

additional treatments in the action alternative, would provide for improvement across the 

landscape. These treatments would affect the goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, turkey, hairy 

woodpecker, elk, mule deer, and Abert’s squirrel by improving their habitats in the long term. The 

pygmy nuthatch forestwide habitat trend would be improved by thinning projects that retain and 

enhance the large tree component within the ponderosa pine forest. The ponderosa pine savanna 

treatments would benefit the pronghorn by creating forage and corridors for movement between 

areas.

The proposed aspen treatments are planned for areas that are a high priority for restoration. While 

this would only impact about 4 percent of the forest aspen, when combined with the proposed 

treatments in the action alternatives, these areas are most at risk of being lost in the near future. 

These treatments would have limited improvement of the red-naped sapsucker in the short term, 

but should improve their habitat in the long term. 

Firewood gathering and travel management requirements together help determine where the 

public collects firewood. Since travel off-road is allowed in firewood areas only, this will limit 

how far the public will go to gather firewood. This will likely leave a high density of dead and 

down woody material in areas that are further from the road. Within firewood areas close to 

roads, less dead woody material will remain available and could fall below forest plan 

requirements for snags, logs, and dead and down woody material. Proposed treatments should 

help limit the amount of area not meeting forest requirements. This would affect the goshawk, 

pygmy nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, and juniper titmouse by removing 

snags that are needed for nesting or prey species. Pinyon-juniper thinning and burning, right-ofway maintenance, and development on private and other Federal lands would have the same 

impacts as described above for alternative A. The cumulative effects along with proposed 

activities in the action alternatives for MIS are as follows: 

• For all the species, the cumulative effects of the above projects will not change the 

predicted forestwide habitat and population trends. 

Coconino NF 

The planned thinning and burning in ponderosa pine of 96,736 to 157,842 acres of ponderosa 

pine habitat would help reduce small tree densities and help move habitat toward historical stand 

structures. These treatments would have the same benefits discussed in alternative A, but when 

added to the additional treatments in the action alternative, they would provide for improvement 

across the landscape. These treatments would affect the goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, turkey, hairy 

woodpecker, elk, mule deer, and Abert’s squirrel by improving their habitats in the long term. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 239

The proposed aspen restoration is planned for areas that contain the majority of the aspen outside 

of the wilderness areas. This would impact 46 percent of the forest aspen clones. These treatments 

would have limited improvement of the red-naped sapsucker in the short term, but should 

improve habitat components in the long term. When combined with proposed treatments in the 

action alternatives, this would improve most of the aspen clones outside of wilderness areas.

Firewood gathering and travel management requirements together help determine where the 

public collects firewood. Off-road travel is only allowed for loading cut firewood. This would 

decrease miles driven off road by people scouting for firewood and would limit how much 

firewood is removed away from roads and increase firewood removal along roads. Proposed 

treatments should help limit the amount of area not meeting forest requirements. This would 

affect the goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, hairy woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, and juniper 

titmouse by removing snags that are needed for nesting or prey species. Pinyon-juniper thinning 

and burning, right-of-way maintenance, and development on private and other Federal lands 

would have the same impacts as described above for the Kaibab NF.

The cumulative effects along with proposed activities in the action alternatives for MIS are as 

follows: 

• For all species, the cumulative effects of the above projects would not change the 

predicted forestwide habitat and population trends. 

Migratory Birds and Important Bird Areas (IBA)

Arizona Partners in Flight (APIF) identifies physiographic areas and priority migratory bird 

species by broad habitat types (Latta et al. 1999). In March 2008, the FWS released its 2008 

“Birds of Conservation Concern Report” (USDI 2008). The Coconino and Kaibab NFs occur 

within the two bird conservation regions (BCR): the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau (BCR 

16) and Sierra Madre Occidental (BCR 34). For the Kaibab NF, the treatment area only occurs 

within BCR 34. This analysis considered high priority bird species from both the APIF and the 

FWS birds of conservation concern (see wildlife specialist report). See the wildlife report which 

display acres of treatment by habitat type. Environmental consequences are based on the 

application of design features and mitigation. See the “Wildlife” section in appendix C in the 

DEIS.

Environmental Consequences

Ponderosa Pine Habitat Type

The following species are analyzed for this vegetation type: northern goshawk, flammulated owl, 

olive-sided flycatcher, Cordilleran flycatcher, Grace’s warbler, Lewis’s woodpecker, purple 

martin, and Cassin’s finch. All but the northern goshawk and purple martin would have potential 

removal of nesting habitat that would result in the potential to kill young of the year. Due to the 

low amount of removing nest habitat while young are still in the nest, there no measureable 

negative effects to any these birds’ populations from alternatives B, C, and D. 

Aspen Habitat Type

The red-naped sapsucker is the only species within the aspen habitat. Only a small percentage of 

aspen or snags would be removed and not all removed trees would have active nest sites due to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

240 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

either not being nest trees or treatments occurring outside of breeding season. However, there 

would be potential of loss of young of the year. The removal of any eggs or fledgling would not 

result in a measurable negative effect to the red-naped sapsucker population from alternatives B, 

C, and D. 

Pinyon-Juniper Habitat Type

The following species are analyzed for this vegetation type: gray vireo, pinyon jay, juniper 

titmouse, black-throated gray warbler, and gray flycatcher. There would be potential for young of 

the year being killed by removal of pinyon-juniper habitat through burning and mechanical 

treatment for these species. The project only occurs within less than 1 percent of the pinyonjuniper that occurs over both forests. Not all treatments would occur during the breeding season. 

The removal of any eggs or fledgling would not result in a measurable negative effect any of 

these species’ population from alternatives B, C, and D.

High Elevation Grasslands Habitat Type

The following species are analyzed for this vegetation type: Swainson’s hawk, ferruginous hawk, 

burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, and Bendire’s thrasher. Only the burrowing owl, 

grasshopper sparrow, and Bendire’s thrasher have potential for mechanical treatments of 

removing nest with young of year, or for the grasshopper sparrow and Bendire’s thrasher the loss 

of nest sites through burning. Due to the limited amount of habitat that would be affected by 

implementation of the project and not all habitat would be affected during the nesting season, it 

would not result in a measurable negative effect on any of these species’ populations from 

alternatives B, C, and D.

Forest Plan Amendments 

Not incorporating these amendments would affect the habitat of most of the migratory birds 

addressed in this report (see the wildlife report for complete analysis). Not including the 

amendments would not be expected to affect the Anderson Mesa Important Bird Area (IBA). The 

MSO amendments would allow managing for lower tree densities and basal area, creating canopy 

gaps, creating and sustaining more large pine and oak trees in the long-term, more large snags 

through time, and increasing understory response. Not incorporating these amendments would 

allow:

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer big pine and oak trees, and increased 

fire risk for wildlife using forested habitats in 18 PACs (related to the proposed 

mechanical treatments in all action alternatives);

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, lower crown base height, and increased fire 

risk in 56 PACs (related to the proposed prescribed fire treatments in alternative C only);

• fewer PACs attaining the desired post-treatment condition due to sequencing of 

treatments through time (all action alternatives);

• uncharacteristically dense forest conditions, fewer canopy openings, and fewer large pine 

and oak trees in restricted habitat that would be managed as threshold habitat where no 

resident MSOs exist on the Kaibab NF (all action alternatives);
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 241

• tree densities maintained well above the minimum basal area stand values recommended 

in the draft recovery plan across all PACs, target, and threshold habitats (i.e., not using 

the best science available; alternative C only); and

• understory conditions would continue to decline across MSO habitat, affecting prey 

habitat and likely decreasing the total prey biomass for raptors.

Not including the amendment related to management of canopy cover and open reference 

conditions within ponderosa pine forest would prevent the ability to include rooting space 

necessary to sustain dense groups of trees, reduce forest densities and associated forest health 

(measured by the percent maximum SDI), and prevent the restoration of grasslands and savanna. 

This would decrease the ability to maintain dense groups of trees along with shrub and 

herbaceous vegetation, decreasing foods for herbivores, granivores (seed-eaters), insectivores, 

and so for carnivores as well. Grassland species and dispersing individuals of prey species 

(primarily rodents and rabbits/hares) that aid in maintaining prey populations in forested habitat 

would be reduced as trees continue to encroach upon open habitats. Simultaneously, habitat for 

species that depend on closed canopy would gradually increase. 

Not managing the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area for the grassland 

characteristics it was intended to support would result in similar dynamics, i.e., the development 

of forest structural characteristics used by some species while reducing habitat effectiveness for 

open habitat species. 

Currently, many migratory birds depend on habitats or habitat elements related to canopy 

openings or early seral conditions. Existing closed-canopy forests limit or eliminate many of the 

necessary habitat components needed by these species. The desired condition of closed canopy 

tree groups interspersed with open rooting space that supports herbaceous vegetation would 

provide key habitat components for these species of status as well as species adapted to closedcanopy forests. Achieving this situation is the reason for the amendments. This interspersion of 

habitats, which is a fundamental part of the desired condition, would not be attained without 

incorporating the amendments into the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects for Migratory Birds

Because of their seasonal movement, the primary management concern for migratory birds is 

nesting habitat and, for bald eagles, winter roost sites. The cumulative analysis area for migratory 

birds is the project area. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities are listed in appendix 

12 of the wildlife report. The effects of projects already implemented were used to describe 

existing conditions of the project area and will not be discussed in this section.

There is an estimated 86,290 acres of thinning from other projects within the treatment area that 

would thin ponderosa pine habitat. There is an estimated 153,211 acres of burning in the 

treatment area. There would also be 4,416 acres of ponderosa pine savanna restoration occurring 

on the Kaibab NF. There are 683 acres of planned aspen restoration and subsequent barrier 

construction planned on the Kaibab NF and 4,637 acres of planned aspen restoration with 

associated barriers on the Coconino NF. In total, 5,320 acres of aspen restoration are planned or 

ongoing within the 4FRI analysis area.

Both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs have begun implementing travel management within the 

treatment area. These efforts would affect impacts from firewood cutting, hunting, and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

242 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

recreational camping across both forests. On the Coconino NF, the public is allowed to travel 

cross country to collect cut firewood with the proper permit. On the Kaibab NF, the public is only 

allowed to drive off-road to collect firewood within designated areas. While there are speciesspecific rules for cutting dead trees, it is not uncommon for larger snags to be cut. This occurs in 

areas closer to roads and decreasing miles of open road should decrease the loss of the resource. 

The Kaibab NF will allow for retrieval of elk during hunting season in all GMUs while the 

Coconino NF will allow elk retrieval in all GMUs except 5a and 5b. The Coconino NF designated 

300-foot-wide off-road camping corridors on select roads for people wanting to park vehicles 

away from roads. On the Coconino NF, areas without camping corridors will have parking 

allowed up to 30 feet off of roads. The Kaibab NF will allow vehicle parking up to 30 feet away 

from all open roads but does not have designated areas for driving off-road beyond that distance 

for camping. 

The Kaibab and Coconino NFs have planned 7,040 acres of pinyon-juniper to be treated within 

the project area. Grassland restoration treatments include removal of encroaching conifers and 

prescribed fire to rejuvenate grasses and forbs. Within the project areas, there are 9,840 acres of 

planned grassland treatments.

Both forests have ongoing maintenance of utility rights-of-way (power and gas lines). This 

involves thinning and burning within the rights-of-way to keep the area clear of trees and shrubs. 

Utility rights-of-way include 32,344 acres, with the majority of the area on the Coconino NF. 

Grazing is occurring through the project area on both forests. Grazing is an ongoing activity and 

the timing of season of use varies by allotment. On average, 30 to 40 percent of the forage is 

allowed for utilization by livestock and wildlife. There is no proposal to increase any livestock 

numbers within these allotments. Therefore, there is no additional affects beyond existing 

conditions. 

There are approximately 150,000 acres of non-Forest Service administered lands within the 

project area. These areas include housing tracts, Navajo Army Depot, vacation homes, and 

ranchland. The Navajo Army Depot is planning development of new training ranges and thinning 

and prescribed fire. The Department of Defense is planning 17,049 acres of thinning and burning 

in ponderosa pine and some grasslands restoration. The Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership is 

planning to burn and thin 535 acres of ponderosa pine habitat around the Flagstaff area.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Resulting forest structure from planned thinning and burning of 243,917 acres of ponderosa pine 

habitat outside of the 4FRI should result in habitat resembling the historical range of variation. In 

the long term, wildlife species are less likely to be adversely affected by treatments that result in 

habitat conditions consistent with those of their evolutionary past and so are expected to respond 

positively to the ongoing and proposed thinning projects (Kalies et al. 2010). These treatments 

would improve habitat for most birds species associated with the ponderosa pine cover type in the 

long term (e.g., bark gleaners, woodpeckers, and flycatchers), but may negatively affect foliage 

gleaners in the short term (Patton and Gordon 1995, George et al. 2005). 

The proposed aspen restoration is planned for areas that are a high priority for restoration on both 

forests. Cumulatively, this would treat the aspen outside of wilderness that are at most risk of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 243

being lost in the near future. These treatments would yield limited improvements for the rednaped sapsucker in the short term, but should improve their habitat components in the long term. 

Firewood gathering and travel management requirements together help determine where the 

public collects firewood. The public will be limited in where they can travel off road to gather 

firewood on both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. This would likely leave higher densities of dead 

and down woody material in areas further from roads. Less dead woody material would be 

expected to remain within firewood areas and areas closer to roads. Designated firewood areas on 

the Kaibab NF may not always meet forest plan requirements for woody material once wood 

gathering activities occur. Areas adjacent to roads may be deficit on the Coconino NF. This could 

have a negative effect on species that use snags or down material in the ponderosa pine, aspen, 

and pinyon-juniper. In grasslands, the travel management requirements would benefit grassland

species by preventing cross-country travel in their habitat.

Pinyon-juniper thinning and burning has the potential to both remove habitat and improve habitat 

for birds that use this habitat type. The proposed activities could result in loss of young of year 

depending on timing of activities. The effects to pinyon-juniper associated species are expected to 

be limited because only a small amount of this habitat would be treated within the cumulative 

effects analysis area.

Utility right-of-way maintenance would help keep strips of land open and create the equivalent of

relatively narrow, liner grasslands. While this may affect individual birds, there is not likely to be 

a cumulative effect to any species because of the limited space and spatial configuration of this 

habitat. 

Development on private land and other Federal lands continue to remove habitat within and 

adjacent to the project area. With development of the additional training ranges on the Navajo 

Army Depot, this will likely move more species out of the area. The cover type with the most 

development occurring is within grasslands and savanna habitat. This would reduce the amount of 

habitat. 

The Coconino NF has implemented an innovative management strategy to protect wetlands from 

grazing and prolonged drought within the Anderson Mesa IBA by regulating the timing and 

duration of livestock grazing in permitted areas. Wetlands are being protected from livestock by 

constructing fences that still allow passage of wildlife. Habitat restoration, including the 

restoration of grasslands, is in progress. Ranchers are actively engaged through the Diablo Trust 

and numerous conservation organizations have assisted in achieving conservation objectives for 

the site.

The cumulative effects for migratory birds could result in some incidental mortality caused by 

project implementation activities. How much mortality would be proportional to how many acres 

are treated during the spring nesting season of April, May, June, and July. Seasonal restrictions 

would limit project implementation activities between March 1 and September 30 in goshawk 

nest area and PFAs and within MSO PACs, which would reduce potential of loss for species listed 

in ponderosa pine habitat. Prescribed burning occurs also in the fall, outside of the spring nesting 

season. Since only a small percentage of habitats would be treated at any one time, the loss of 

eggs or nestlings would not result in a measurable negative effect to the migratory birds 

populations listed above.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

244 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Other Forest Plan Required Analyses 

Hiding and Thermal Cover

Providing for hiding and thermal cover is required by both forest plans. Both plans direct at least 

10 percent hiding cover and 10 percent thermal cover be provided in assessment areas. An 

additional 10 (Coconino NF) to 20 percent (Kaibab NF) of cover can be classified as either hiding 

or thermal (unless the needs of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA conflicts 

with this direction) (USDA 1987, 1988). Wildlife cover on the Coconino NF should be assessed 

in 10,000-acre blocks while the Kaibab describes cover assessments in terms of project areas. 

Both are intended to ensure that cover is provided across the area under consideration and not 

concentrated in some regions and absent from others. However, neither scale meets the intent of 

the forest plans when applied to the 4FRI treatment area. Ten-thousand-acre blocks are small 

relative to 4FRI and the project area is too large. Therefore, wildlife cover was evaluated at the 

subunit scale, allowing for an assessment of unit areas fully distributed across the treatment area.

The size of tree groups and canopy cover developed for the 4FRI are from the scientific literature 

and site conditions assigned by the terrestrial ecosystem survey. The resulting forest structure is 

designed to meet or move toward forest plan direction (e.g., even-aged stands cannot attain 

uneven-aged conditions in a single entry). This approach does incorporate the best science 

available to better meet the intent of the forest plans. Because this approach meets the intent of 

the forest plans, no forest plan amendment was needed. Final assessments for cover categories 

included a combination of treatment intensity, VSS category, canopy cover, and woody plant 

species other than pine. All data and documentation related to hiding and thermal cover is located 

in appendix 5 of the wildlife specialist report, and analysis details can be found on pages 17 to 19 

of the wildlife report. 

Habitat Capability

The NFMA directs the Forest Service to maintain enough habitat adequately distributed across 

each forest to maintain populations of designated MIS. Habitat capability index (HCI) modeling 

was not used in the 4FRI wildlife analyses because the HCI approach does not meet direction for 

use of the best available science. Instead, ecosystem management can be viewed in terms of the 

evolutionary environment or range of natural variability under which habitats and their associated 

species evolved (Fulé et al. 2002, Abella 2008). This analysis compared MIS habitat elements 

such as early seral habitat, late-seral habitat, or large snags, to the desired conditions specifically 

developed to represent the historical range of variation.

The comparison of habitat elements was done among alternatives and through time using the 

FVS. Although the HCI model was not specifically used (forest-specific models are no longer 

available on either the Coconino or Kaibab NFs), the approach used in this analysis is consistent 

with the intent of the forest plans in terms of maintaining appropriate habitats on the landscape. 

All data related to assessing a surrogate for HCI is located in MIS effects analysis (see wildlife 

report). 

Other Analysis

Habitat Connectivity

Using the vegetation analysis, the wildlife analysis evaluated potential impacts to habitats from 

treatments in alternatives B, C, and D. A full discussion of bridge habitat for canopy-dependent 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 245

wildlife can be found in appendix G of the DEIS and in appendix 3 of the wildlife report. In 

addition, landscape-scale closed canopy corridors would be included as part of each action 

alternative (see appendix 4 of the wildlife report).

Environmental Consequences – Alternatives B, C, and D

In alternatives B, C, and D, 13 percent of the landscape within the 4FRI project boundary would 

be deferred from treatment. Nearly 42 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area would have a 

moderately closed canopy and another 17 percent would remain in a closed condition after 

treatment. An additional 17 percent of the treated area would have a mix of open and closed 

conditions. Restoration units near the Mogollon Rim would provide the greatest percentage of 

bridge habitat after treatment. Old growth allocations account for 38 percent of the ponderosa 

pine treatment area and are well distributed across the landscape.

A patch-mosaic of small deferrals would be created in stands all across the 4FRI project area to 

provide safeguards for wildlife features such as nests and hiding cover. Implementation guidance 

in MSO and northern goshawk habitats includes provisions for higher density and canopy cover.

Aquatics

This section includes key effects and conclusions for aquatic threatened, endangered, and 

proposed species and critical habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, Forest Service Southwestern Region sensitive species, and Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

aquatic management indicator species (MIS).

The fisheries specialist (Childs 2013) report is incorporated by reference. See the specialist report 

for detailed information on methodology, analysis assumptions, best available science and data, 

habitats, populations, and effects that are not repeated in this section. 

Aquatic Federally Listed Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed Candidate Species, and 

Designated Critical Habitat, and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Only those aquatic federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate species along with Forest 

Service sensitive species that are known or have potential to occur within the project area are 

analyzed. Table 76 lists species considered and provides a summarized existing condition 

narrative. Table 77 describes the affected environment for species evaluated.

The threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists for the Coconino NF was reviewed and a 

list of species was created for this project based on known occurrence or, in the absence of survey 

data, the presence of suitable habitat. The following is a description of the species, their habitat, 

and an analysis of the effects of implementation of each alternative on each species.

Three species (Gila chub, razorback sucker, and Colorado pikeminnow) were eliminated from 

further analysis because these species do not have critical habitat, potential habitat, or occupied 

habitat in the analysis area. Gila trout was eliminated from further analysis because this species 

does not have occupied habitat in the analysis area, and because this species will not be 

reintroduced into any waters in the analysis area in the foreseeable future.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

246 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 76. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species evaluated in this analysis

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status1 Occurrence2

Coconino NF 

Forestwide 

Habitat (miles)

Potential Habitat in 

Affected 

Environment 

(miles)

Occupied Habitat 

in Affected 

Environment 

(miles)

Fish

Gila chub Gila intermedia E, WC Δ 13.34 0 0 

Spikedace Meda fulgida E, WC Δ 134.34 36.84 0 

Colorado 

pikeminnow

Ptychocheilus lucius E3, WC Δ 55.6 0 0 

Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis E, WC H 95.84 36.84 0 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E, WC Δ 55.64 0 0 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta C, WC, FS-S O, Δ 350.9 77.9 77.9

Longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster WC, FS-S O, Δ 236.7 77.9 77.9

Desert sucker Catostomus clarki WC, FS-S O, Δ 236.7 77.9 77.9

Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis WC, FS-S O, Δ 236.7 77.9 77.9

Macroinvertebrates

California floater Anodonta californiensis FS-S H 368.6 77.9 0 

A mayfly Homoleptohyphes quercus FS-S O 77.7 72.6 72.6

1 Status: T = Federally listed as threatened, E = Federally listed as endangered, C = Candidate for Federal listing as threatened or endangered, WC = Wildlife of special 

concern in Arizona (1996 AGFD classification pending revision to Article 4 of the State regulations), FS-S = Forest Service sensitive species 2 Occurrence: O = Species known to occur in the project area or in the general vicinity of the area, Δ = Species occurs downstream of project area, H = Species occurred 

historically in project area

3 Colorado pikeminnow is listed as endangered; the species is listed as “experimental nonessential” in Arizona. 4 All habitat is also critical habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 247

Table 77. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and MIS species evaluated 

in this analysis and their affected anvironment

Common

(Scientific 

Name)

Affected Environment

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Spikedace

(Meda fulgida) and 

critical habitat

Spikedace is historic to the Verde River. However, the species has not been detected for 

years in this system and may be extirpated. There are 134.3 miles of spikedace critical 

habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. Within the analysis area, the species has 36.8 

miles of critical habitat, in the middle and lower Oak Creek. Although unoccupied, this 

habitat is analyzed for potential effects from the proposed alternatives. 

Loach Minnow 

(Tiaroga cobitis) 

and critical habitat

Loach minnow has been extirpated from the Verde River, and it has not been detected in 

that stream since 1938 (Minckley 1993). There are 95.8 miles of loach minnow critical 

habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. Within the analysis area, the species has 36.8 

miles of critical habitat, in the middle and lower Oak Creek. Although unoccupied, this 

habitat is analyzed for potential effects from the proposed alternatives.

Aquatic Candidate Species

Roundtail Chub 

(Gila robusta) 

Roundtail chub is widespread in moderate to large rivers of the Colorado River Basin. In 

Arizona, it still occurs in the main stem and tributaries to the Verde and Salt Rivers. There 

are 350.9 miles of potential roundtail chub habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. 

Within the analysis area, the species occupies 77.9 miles (22.2 percent) of perennial 

streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, 

Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek.

Southwestern Region Forest Service Aquatic Sensitive Species

Longfin Dace 

(Agosia 

chrysogaster)

There are 236.7 miles of potential longfin dace habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. 

Within the analysis area, the species occupies 77.9 miles (32.9 percent) of perennial 

streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, 

Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek.

Desert Sucker 

(Catostomus clarki)

There are 236.7 miles of potential desert sucker habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. 

Within the analysis area, the species occupies 77.9 miles (32.9 percent) of perennial 

streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, 

Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek.

Sonora Sucker 

(Catostomus 

insignis)

There are 236.7 miles of potential Sonora sucker habitat within the Coconino NF 

boundary. Within the analysis area, the species occupies 77.9 miles (32.9 percent) of 

perennial streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling 

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

California Floater 

(Anodonta 

californiensis)

There are 368.6 miles of potential California floater habitat within the Coconino NF 

boundary. Within the analysis area, there are 77.9 miles (21.1 percent) of potential 

perennial stream habitat, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, 

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

A Mayfly

(Homoleptohyphes 

quercus)

There are 77.7 miles of potential A mayfly habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. 

Within the analysis area, the species occupies 72.6 miles (93.4 percent) of perennial 

streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, and 

West Fork of Oak Creek.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

248 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Common

(Scientific 

Name)

Affected Environment

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Macroinvertebrates As a group, aquatic macroinvertebrates are identified in both the Coconino NF and Kaibab 

NF forest plans (as amended) as MIS for high and low elevation late-seral riparian areas.

There are 368.6 miles of potential macroinvertebrate habitat within the Coconino NF 

boundary. Within the analysis area, macroinvertebrates occupy 83.7 miles (22.7 percent) 

of perennial streams, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Rio de 

Flag, Sawmill Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek.

Environmental Consequences

Potential impacts to aquatic resources are compared to the sediment outputs predicted in the soils 

and hydrology specialist report (Steinke 2013, MacDonald 2013). The primary environmental 

consequence to aquatic habitat and associated species from timber and vegetation treatments 

would be increased ground disturbance which has the potential to increase the rate of soil erosion 

over natural background levels. The analysis focuses on the predicted ground disturbance and its 

effect in regards to the following:

• Changes in sediment and erosion. 

• Alterations to channel morphology—increased sediment has the potential to alter stream 

channel morphology. 

• Changes to stream temperatures—alterations in morphology can change the width to 

depth ratio of channels, and shallower wider channels can lead to more drastic diurnal 

fluctuation in stream temperature and higher and lower temperature extremes. 

• Effects on riparian vegetation—loss of upland watershed vegetation can lead to flashier 

hydrographs which erode stream channels, lowering the water table impacting riparian 

vegetation. 

• Macroinvertebrate assemblage—alteration in channel morphology or increases in 

sediment can alter the macroinvertebrate assemblage. 

Stream Habitat

Alternative A

It is predicted (Lata 2013) that up to 33 percent of soils could burn under high burn severity if left 

untreated and the soils analysis indicates there would be erosion above the tolerance level and a 

loss of soil productivity. The result to stream courses and perennial streams, including their 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and habitat, would be effects similar to those 

observed following the Schultz Fire in 2010 (flooding, soil erosion, debris flows, channel 

realignment, destruction of riparian areas, sedimentation, and embeddedness of stream substrates, 

etc.).

The effects of increased sedimentation on fishes include ash flows that can negatively impact 

water quality by increasing pH and decreasing dissolved oxygen levels (Earl and Blinn 2003), 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 249

both of which can quickly kill fish. Alternative A would not mitigate these potential negative 

impacts.

However, it is difficult to compare the known effects of the proposed action alternatives with the 

potential effects of hypothetical wildfire. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or their habitat from alternative A, there would be no 

cumulative effects.

Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Direct effects of vegetation management on stream systems should be minor when Forest Service 

BMPs are followed (Southwestern Region FSH 2509.22) (see appendix C of the DEIS for all 

mitigation and BMPs). Limiting vegetation management activities from impacting stream courses 

should lead to minor or inconsequential direct effects to streams habitat and their associated biota. 

Buffer strips of at least 70 feet to 120 feet (BMP 8; Steinke 2013) would be used to protect stream 

courses. 

None of the action alternatives propose for ignitions to occur within riparian areas or along 

stream channels, but fire would be allowed to back downslope into these areas. If fire burns 

riparian areas, there is the potential for some ash and localized erosion to occur, however, these 

effects should be minor in degree and extent.

All action alternatives propose some prescribed fire on slopes greater than 15 percent, so there 

would be a short-term risk of sedimentation or ash flow resulting from these treatments. 

However, BMPs would be in place to mitigate these risks and proposed treatments would occur 

over a 10-year period, rather than all at once, so any impacts should be localized in extent. 

The primary negative impacts to aquatic systems and their associated biota from vegetation 

treatment and prescribed fire come as indirect effects including: increased sediment, loss of 

riparian vegetation, altered macroinvertebrate assemblages, lowering of groundwater tables and 

decreased perennial flows, increased stream temperature, larger peak flows, stock tank impacts, 

and changes in channel form (Bisson et al. 2003, Swank et al. 1989). 

There would be an increased risk of sediment and ash flow into stream courses in alternative B 

and C over alternative D, which has less prescribed fire. 

The perennial streams within the project area that contain fish and/or macroinvertebrates are 

Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Rio de Flag, Sawmill Wash, Sterling Canyon, 

Sycamore Creek, and West Fork Oak Creek (see specialist report). Effects from the action 

alternatives to aquatic resources are compared with regard to sediment outputs predicted from the 

soils and water quality and riparian specialist’s report (Steinke 2013, MacDonald 2013).

BMPs should greatly reduce the risk to perennial streams of short-term impacts (sedimentation) 

from prescribed fire activities. BMPs would also reduce the risk of short-term impacts resulting 

from spring and stream restoration, road decommissioning, and dust abatement measures.

Forest Plan Amendments

Effects from the proposed forest plan amendments would not be measurable to aquatic species or 

their habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

250 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Threatened, Endangered, and Forest 

Service Sensitive Aquatic Species Habitat

Threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive aquatic species in and adjacent to the 

project area are all located on the Coconino NF. Units and subunits (and relevant 6th Code HUC 

watersheds) that contain these species are: 1-3 (Pumphouse Wash), 1-4 (Sawmill Wash), 1-5 

(Munds Canyon), 3-3 (Cedar Creek, Little LO Spring Canyon, Lower Sycamore Creek, Middle 

Sycamore Creek, Upper Sycamore Creek), 3-4 (Pumphouse Wash), 3-5 (Middle Oak Creek, 

Munds Canyon, Upper Oak Creek, West Fork Oak Creek), and 5-1 (Lower Rio de Flag). All other 

watersheds within the analysis area do not contain threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic 

species habitat. Table 78 displays the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

The geographic setting and boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is the 82 6th HUC 

watersheds within or intersecting the project boundary for a total of about 2,032,000 acres. The 

timeframe for past actions is 2 to 3 years based on vegetative and CWD recovery of the site.

The cumulative impacts to soils and watershed from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions as presented in the “Soils and Water” section of chapter 3 and the soils specialist report is 

incorporated by reference.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 251

Table 78. Aquatic threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species environmental consequences

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Spikedace and 

critical habitat

Loach Minnow 

and critical 

habitat

Species Determination

Spikedace and loach minnow are not currently present 

within the affected environment. Therefore, alternative A 

would have no effect on spikedace or loach minnow.

Critical Habitat

Within the analysis area, critical habitat for spikedace and 

loach minnow exists in the middle and lower portions of 

Oak Creek (USDI 2012). Perennial streams on the 

Coconino NF within and adjacent to the project area are 

at high risk of increased sedimentation and ash flows 

resulting from stand-replacing crown fires. Ash flows 

produced from forest fires can negatively impact water 

quality. Stream morphology can be changed by sediment 

deposition. Alternative A (no action) would not mitigate 

these potential negative impacts. However, it is difficult 

to compare the known effects of the proposed action 

alternatives with the potential effects of hypothetical 

wildfire. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to 

spikedace and loach minnow or their habitat from 

alternative A, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Therefore, alternative A would have no effect on 

spikedace or loach minnow critical habitat.

Species Determination

Spikedace and loach minnow are not currently present within the affected environment. 

Therefore, alternative B would have no effect on spikedace or loach minnow.

Critical Habitat

Within the analysis area, critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow exists in the 

middle and lower portions of Oak Creek (USDI 2012). The soils report (Steinke 2013) 

indicates that prescribed fire treatments could result in soil erosion in areas where slope 

exceeds 15 percent. There would be a short-term risk (1–2 years) of sedimentation or ash 

flow resulting from these treatments. However, BMPs would be in place to mitigate these 

risks and proposed treatments would occur over a 10-year period, rather than all at once, so 

any impacts should be localized in extent. Alternative C proposes more acres of mechanical 

vegetation treatment than alternative B, but vegetation treatments should result in 

negligible soil erosion if BMPs are followed. Alternative D proposes far fewer acres of 

prescribed fire than either alternative B or C, but alternative D would not meet the purpose 

and need of the project.

The short-term risks incurred by the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire are

necessary for the long-term benefit of the forest, including restoring the health of 

watersheds and streams in which spikedace and loach minnow live. Spring and stream 

restoration, as well as road decommissioning activities, could also result in short-term 

increases in soil movement and sedimentation. These proposed treatments are the same 

across all action alternatives. Again, BMPs would be in place to mitigate these short-term 

risks in order to see long-term benefits from restored hydrologic function at spring sources, 

reduced potential for severe flooding in restored ephemeral channels, and reduced erosion 

and runoff resulting from properly decommissioned and/or relocated roads.

Therefore, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, alternatives B, C, and D 

may affect but are not likely to adversely affect spikedace or loach minnow critical 

habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

252 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Candidate Species

Roundtail Chub Species Determination

Within the analysis area, roundtail chub occupies 77.9 

miles of perennial stream (22.2 percent of its habitat on 

the Coconino NF), including Munds Canyon, Oak 

Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore 

Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek. 

Perennial streams on the Coconino NF within and 

adjacent to the project area are at high risk of increased 

sedimentation and ash flows resulting from standreplacing crown fires. Ash flows produced from forest 

fires can negatively impact water quality. Stream 

morphology can be changed by sediment deposition. 

Alternative A would not mitigate these potential 

negative impacts. However, it is difficult to compare the 

known effects of the proposed action alternatives with 

the potential effects of hypothetical wildfire. Because 

there are no direct or indirect effects to roundtail chub or 

its habitat from alternative A, there would be no 

cumulative effects. Therefore, alternative A would have 

no effect on roundtail chub or its habitat.

Species Determination

Within the analysis area, roundtail chub occupies 77.9 miles of perennial stream (22.2 

percent of its habitat on the CNF), including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse 

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

The soils report (Steinke 2013) indicates that prescribed fire treatments could result in soil 

erosion in areas where slope exceeds 15 percent. There would be a short-term risk (1–2 

years) of sedimentation or ash flow resulting from these treatments. However, BMPs would 

be in place to mitigate these risks and proposed treatments would occur over a 10-year

period, rather than all at once, so any impacts should be localized in extent. Alternative C 

proposes more acres of mechanical vegetation treatment than alternative B, but vegetation 

treatments should result in negligible soil erosion if BMPs are followed. Alternative D 

proposes far fewer acres of prescribed fire than either alternative B or alternative C, but 

alternative D would not meet the purpose and need of the project. 

The short-term risks incurred by the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire are 

necessary for the long-term benefit of the forest, including restoring the health of 

watersheds and streams in which roundtail chub live. Spring and stream restoration, as well 

as road decommissioning activities could also result in short-term increases in soil 

movement and sedimentation. These proposed treatments are the same across all action 

alternatives. BMPs would be in place to mitigate these short-term risks in order to see longterm benefits from restored hydrologic function at spring sources, reduced potential for 

severe flooding in restored ephemeral channels, and reduced erosion and runoff resulting 

from properly decommissioned and/or relocated roads. Therefore, considering direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects, alternatives B, C, and D may affect but are not likely to 

adversely affect roundtail chub or its habitat.

Southwestern Region Forest Service Sensitive Species*

Roundtail Chub Species Determination

Within the analysis area, roundtail chub occupies 77.9 

miles of perennial stream (22.2 percent of its habitat on 

the CNF), including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, 

Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore Creek, 

and West Fork of Oak Creek. 

Perennial streams on the Coconino NF within and 

Species Determination

Within the analysis area, roundtail chub occupies 77.9 miles of perennial stream (22.2 

percent of its habitat on the CNF), including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse 

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

The soils report (Steinke 2013) indicates that prescribed fire treatments could result in soil 

erosion in areas where slope exceeds 15 percent. There would be a short-term risk (1–2 

years) of sedimentation or ash flow resulting from these treatments. However, BMPs would 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 253

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

adjacent to the project area are at high risk of increased 

sedimentation and ash flows resulting from standreplacing crown fires. Ash flows produced from forest 

fires can negatively impact water quality. Stream 

morphology can be changed by sediment deposition. 

Alternative A would not mitigate these potential 

negative impacts. However, it is difficult to compare the 

known effects of the proposed action alternatives with 

the potential effects of hypothetical wildfire. Because 

there are no direct or indirect effects to roundtail chub or

its habitat from alternative A, there can be no cumulative 

effects. 

Therefore, alternative A is not likely to cause a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability of roundtail chub.

be in place to mitigate these risks and proposed treatments would occur over a 10-year

period, rather than all at once, so any impacts should be localized in extent. 

Alternative C proposes more acres of mechanical vegetation treatment than alternative B, 

but vegetation treatments should result in negligible soil erosion if BMPs are followed. 

Alternative D proposes far fewer acres of prescribed fire than either alternative B or C, but 

alternative D would not meet the purpose and need of the project. 

The short-term risks incurred by the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire are 

necessary for the long-term benefit of the forest, including restoring the health of 

watersheds and streams in which roundtail chub live. Spring and stream restoration, as well 

as road decommissioning activities, could also result in short-term increases in soil 

movement and sedimentation. These proposed treatments are the same across all action 

alternatives. BMPs would be in place to mitigate these short-term risks in order to see longterm benefits from restored hydrologic function at spring sources, reduced potential for 

severe flooding in restored ephemeral channels, and reduced erosion and runoff resulting 

from properly decommissioned and/or relocated roads.

Therefore, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, alternatives B, C, and D

may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of 

viability of roundtail chub.

Longfin Dace

Desert Sucker

Sonora Sucker

California Floater 

Species Determination

Within the analysis area, longfin dace, desert sucker, and 

Sonora sucker occupy 77.9 miles of perennial stream 

(32.9 percent of its habitat on the Coconino NF), 

including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse 

Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore Creek, and West Fork 

of Oak Creek. These perennial streams also represent 

potential habitat for the extirpated California floater. 

Perennial streams on the Coconino NF within and 

adjacent to the project area are at high risk of increased 

sedimentation and ash flows resulting from standreplacing crown fires. Ash flows produced from forest 

fires can negatively impact water quality. Stream 

morphology can be changed by sediment deposition. 

Alternative A (no action) would not mitigate these 

potential negative impacts. However, it is difficult to 

Species Determination

Within the analysis area, longfin dace, desert sucker, and Sonora sucker occupy 77.9 miles 

of perennial stream (32.9 percent of its habitat on the Coconino NF), including Munds 

Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore Creek, and West Fork 

of Oak Creek. These perennial streams also represent potential habitat for the extirpated 

California floater.

The soils report (Steinke 2013) indicates that prescribed fire treatments could result in soil 

erosion in areas where slope exceeds 15 percent. There would be a short-term risk (1–2 

years) of sedimentation or ash flow resulting from these treatments. However, BMPs would 

be in place to mitigate these risks and proposed treatments would occur over a 10-year

period, rather than all at once, so any impacts should be localized in extent. Alternative C 

proposes more acres of mechanical vegetation treatment than alternative B, but vegetation 

treatments should result in negligible soil erosion if BMPs are followed. Alternative D 

proposes far fewer acres of prescribed fire than either alternative B or C, but alternative D 

does not meet the purpose and need of the project. 

The short-term risks incurred by the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire are 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

254 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

compare the known effects of the proposed action 

alternatives with the potential effects of hypothetical 

wildfire. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to 

longfin dace, desert sucker, Sonora sucker, or California 

floater or their habitat from alternative A, there can be 

no cumulative effects.

Therefore, alternative A is not likely to cause a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability of longfin dace, 

desert sucker, Sonora sucker, or California floater.

necessary for the long-term benefit of the forest, including restoring the health of 

watersheds and streams in which longfin dace, desert sucker, and Sonora sucker live.

Spring and stream restoration, as well as road decommissioning activities, could also result 

in short-term increases in soil movement and sedimentation. These proposed treatments are 

the same across all action alternatives. BMPs would be in place to mitigate these short-term 

risks in order to see long-term benefits from restored hydrologic function at spring sources, 

reduced potential for severe flooding in restored ephemeral channels, and reduced erosion 

and runoff resulting from properly decommissioned and/or relocated roads.

Therefore, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, alternatives B, C, and D

may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of 

viability of longfin dace, desert sucker, Sonora sucker, or California floater. 

A mayfly Species Determination

There are 77.7 miles of potential A mayfly habitat 

within the Coconino NF boundary. Within the analysis 

area, the species occupies 72.6 miles (93.4 percent) of 

perennial stream, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, 

Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, and West Fork of 

Oak Creek. It is often associated with silt, fine sand, 

gravel, and woody debris. It is not thought that sediment 

impairs this species or its habitat and there is no clear 

understanding as to why this species range has declined. 

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to A mayfly 

from alternative A, there would be no cumulative 

effects. Therefore, alternative A is not likely to cause a 

trend to Federal listing or loss of viability of A 

mayfly.

Species Determination

There are 77.7 miles of potential A mayfly habitat within the Coconino NF boundary. 

Within the analysis area, the species occupies 72.6 miles (93.4 percent) of perennial stream, 

including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, Sterling Canyon, and West Fork 

of Oak Creek. It is often associated with silt, fine sand, gravel, and woody debris. It is not 

thought that sediment impairs this species or its habitat, and there is no clear understanding 

as to why this species range has declined. 

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to A Mayfly from alternatives B–D, there would 

be no cumulative effects. Therefore, alternatives B–D are not likely to cause a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability of A mayfly.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 255

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D 

Management Indicator Species

Macroinvertebrates

High and Low 

Elevation Lateseral Riparian 

Indicator Species

Determination

There are 368.6 miles of potential macroinvertebrate 

habitat (perennial stream) within the Coconino NF 

boundary. Within the analysis area, there are 83.7 miles 

(22.7 percent) of potential perennial stream habitat, 

including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse 

Wash, Rio de Flag, Sawmill Wash, Sterling Canyon, 

Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak Creek. 

Perennial streams on the Coconino NF within and 

adjacent to the project area are at high risk of increased 

sedimentation and ash flows resulting from standreplacing crown fires. Ash flows produced from forest 

fires can negatively impact water quality. Stream 

morphology can be changed by sediment deposition. 

Alternative A would not mitigate these potential 

negative impacts. However, it is difficult to compare the 

known effects of the proposed action alternatives with 

the potential effects of hypothetical wildfire. Because 

there are no direct or indirect effects to 

macroinvertebrates or their habitat from alternative A, 

there can be no cumulative effects.

Overall, forestwide riparian condition trend is mostly 

toward proper functioning condition, with some static 

areas (Steinke 2013). Overall trend in riparian acreage 

since 1987 is probably static to slightly upward with the 

addition of some riparian acreage in land exchanges 

(Steinke 2013). Macroinvertebrate population trends in 

high and low elevation streams on the forest are static. 

Alternative A would not change macroinvertebrate 

habitat quality or quantity on the forest, nor would it 

change current forestwide trends. 

Determination

There are 368.6 miles of potential macroinvertebrate habitat (perennial stream) within the 

Coconino NF boundary. Within the analysis area, there are 83.7 miles (22.7 percent) of 

potential perennial stream habitat, including Munds Canyon, Oak Creek, Pumphouse Wash, 

Rio de Flag, Sawmill Wash, Sterling Canyon, Sycamore Creek, and West Fork of Oak 

Creek. The soils report (Steinke 2013) indicates that prescribed fire treatments could result 

in soil erosion in areas where slope exceeds 15 percent. There would be a short-term risk 

(1–2 years) of sedimentation or ash flow resulting from these treatments. However, BMPs 

would be in place to mitigate these risks and proposed treatments would occur over a 10-

year period, rather than all at once, so any impacts should be localized in extent. Alternative 

C proposes more acres of mechanical vegetation treatment than alternative B, but 

vegetation treatments should result in negligible soil erosion if BMPs are followed. 

Alternative D proposes far fewer acres of prescribed fire than either alternative B or C, but 

alternative D would not meet the purpose and need of the project.

The short-term risks incurred by the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire are 

necessary for the long-term benefit of the forest, including restoring the health of 

watersheds and streams in which macroinvertebrates live. Spring and stream restoration, as 

well as road decommissioning activities, could also result in short-term increases in soil 

movement and sedimentation. These proposed treatments are the same across all action 

alternatives. BMPs would be in place to mitigate these short-term risks in order to see longterm benefits from restored hydrologic function at spring sources, reduced potential for 

severe flooding in restored ephemeral channels, and reduced erosion and runoff resulting 

from properly decommissioned and/or relocated roads.

Overall forestwide riparian condition trend is mostly toward proper functioning condition, 

with some static areas (Steinke 2013). The overall trend in riparian acreage since 1987 is 

probably static to slightly upward with the addition of some riparian acreage in land 

exchanges (Steinke 2013). Macroinvertebrate population trends in high and low elevation

streams on the forest are static.

Considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, alternatives B, C, and D may impact 

individuals, but would not change macroinvertebrate habitat quality or quantity on 

the forest, nor would they change current forestwide trends.

* The environmental consequences include a biological evaluation for the Southwestern Region Forest Service sensitive species
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

256 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

The noxious and invasive weed analysis is part of the botany specialist report which is 

incorporated by reference (Crisp 2013).

Noxious and invasive weed direction originated from a three-forest analysis (USDA 2005). The 

noxious weed FEIS/ROD was incorporated into the forest plans by amendment 20 to the 

Coconino forest plan and amendment 7 to the Kaibab forest plan. The species displayed in table

79 were evaluated for presence/absence in the treatment area. The species ranking is from the 

noxious weed FEIS and relates to the prioritization process that used various criteria including 

difficulty of control, successes with control efforts elsewhere, and life cycle (perennial vs. 

annual). 

The options listed in table 79 in the objective column include prevention, eradication, and control. 

Prevention means minimizing introduction of a weed species into the project area and usually by 

combining with eradication to allow for elimination of spot populations as they arise. Eradication 

means attempting to totally eliminate a species from the forests. Control means preventing seed 

production throughout a target patch and reducing the area covered by a species, whereas contain 

means to prevent the species from expanding beyond the perimeter of existing patches.

Table 79. Treatment area noxious and invasive weeds evaluation

Species* Common Name Species 

Rank Objective

Known to Occur 

in Treatment 

Areas (Y/N)

Euphorbia esula leafy spurge 1 Eradicate Y 

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle 2 Eradicate N 

Centaurea melitensis Malta starthistle 3 Eradicate N*

Alhagi maurorum 

Syn. Alhaghi pseudoalhagi

camelthorn 4 Contain/Control Y 

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed 5 Contain/Control Y 

Cardaria draba whitetop 6 Eradicate Y 

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage 7 Eradicate Y 

Carduus nutans musk thistle 8 Eradicate Y 

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 9 Contain/Control Y 

Centaurea stoebe ssp. 

Micranthos

Syn. Centaurea maculosa, 

Centaurea biebersteinii

spotted knapweed 10 Eradicate Y 

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle 11 Eradicate/Control Y 

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive 12 Contain/Control N*

Tamarix spp. tamarisk 13 Contain/Control Y 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 257

Species* Common Name Species 

Rank Objective

Known to Occur 

in Treatment 

Areas (Y/N)

Rubus procerus

Syn. R. armeniacus or R. 

discolor

Himalayan 

blackberry

14 Contain/Control N*

Cynoglossum officinale houndstongue 15 Eradicate N 

Arundo donax giant reed 16 Contain/Control N* 

Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil 17 Prevent/Eradicate N* 

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax 18 Contain/Control Y 

Ailanthus altissima tree of Heaven 19 Contain/Control N* 

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 20 Contain/Control Y 

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm 21 Contain/Control N* 

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass 22 Contain/Control 

specific 

populations

Y 

Avena fatua wild oats 23 Contain/Control N* 

Dipsacus fullonum common teasel 24 Eradicate N*

Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum 

Syn Leucanthemum vulgare

oxeye daisy Unassigned Prevent/Eradicate N 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Unassigned Prevent/Eradicate N* 

Halogeton glomeratus halogeton Unassigned Prevent/Eradicate N* 

Isatis tinctoria dyers woad Unassigned Prevent/Eradicate N*

Myriophyllum spicatum** Eurasian water 

milfoil

Unassigned ** N 

N* = these species are not known to occur within treatment areas for the project, but are of concern due to their 

proximity and potential effects to restoration treatments. Partners have expressed concern for these species. Their rating 

system is explained below (Smith 2012).

** Unassigned.

In addition to the species identified for treatment in the forest plan, external partners expressed 

concern for other noxious or invasive weed species. Their rankings, goals for management, and 

rationale (discussed below) were incorporated into analysis and monitoring plan. 

High Risk – these species currently have limited geographic distribution within the treatment 

areas. If current inventories indicate their presence within treatment areas, these species would be 

given priority and would be eradicated as soon as practicable. These species include leafy spurge, 

camelthorn, spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, Russian knapweed, white top, Mediterranean 

sage, Scotch thistle, tamarisk, and musk thistle.

Medium Risk – these species have widespread distribution within the treatment areas in large 

populations and include cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, bull thistle, and wild oats. Areas would 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

258 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

be prioritized for treatment based on risk to conservation value (presence or proximity of 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species) and areas of high wildlife habitat value (e. g., pinesagebrush ecotone).

Watch List – watch list species include Malta starthistle, Russian olive, yellow starthistle, 

Himalayan blackberry, giant reed, sulfur cinquefoil, tree of heaven, Siberian elm, halogeton, 

dyer’s woad, Eurasian water-milfoil, oxeye daisy, Canada thistle, and common teasel. If these 

species are detected, aggressive eradication efforts would be a priority and addressed as soon as 

practicable.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

There would be no direct effects. Weed infestations that might have been detected and treated 

would go unnoticed and continue to expand unless detected by other surveys or independent 

observations. The cumulative effects boundary is the Coconino and Kaibab NFs and the temporal 

timeframe is from 1995 to the present. Indirectly, increases in fire hazard and severity would 

increase the risk of noxious weed invasions in the project area. Warmer climate conditions may 

affect ecosystems by altering biotic and abiotic factors and increase the extent and severity of 

disturbances for some species (Bradley et al. 2010, Hellmann et al. 2008, Middleton 2006). 

Climate may favor the spread of invasive exotic grasses into arid lands where the native 

vegetation is too sparse to carry a fire. When these areas burn, they typically convert to nonnative 

monocultures and the native vegetation is lost (USDA 2010). Ongoing FS management actions 

combined with the Arizona Department of Transportation, Coconino County, and city of Flagstaff 

would continue to address and mitigate effects of noxious or invasive weeds and reduce the 

spread into new areas.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects include ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to increase the 

acreage and/or density of the existing infestations within the project area. Management activities 

that would create localized severe disturbance include burned areas from slash piles, the creation 

of log decks, bare soil created through temporary road construction, road reconstruction (both 

road improvement and road relocation), decommissioning, stream channel restoration, and use by 

machinery during mechanical thinning. Broadcast burning and hand thinning would be sources of 

disturbance but the level of disturbance would not be as severe. Direct and indirect effects of 

temporary road construction, road reconstruction, road maintenance, or decommissioning include 

disturbance and increased risk of dispersal of existing weed species and populations and the 

introduction of new species. However, reducing the road mileage would help reduce the risk of 

present and future dispersal of noxious or invasive weeds along roadways (Rooney 2005). Spring 

and channel restoration would increase disturbance in the treated areas. With the incorporation of 

mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) (see appendix C of the DEIS), these effects 

would be reduced to nonsignificant levels.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 259

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary is the Coconino and Kaibab NFs within the project area 

boundary. This temporal timeframe includes management actions related to noxious or invasive 

weeds since 1995 to the present. 

Beginning in 1995, the Coconino and Kaibab NFs began surveying and documenting noxious or 

invasive weed occurrences. Since 1997, noxious or invasive weed surveys were generally 

conducted on forest projects that would have management actions associated with soil 

disturbance. In 2005, the three-forest noxious weeds FEIS document and its provisions were 

incorporated into the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF by amendments 20 (Coconino NF) and 7 

(Kaibab NF).This document represented a major change in the management of noxious or 

invasive weed control on the forests by allowing the use of herbicides on forest lands. All of the 

above actions were beneficial management actions that supported management control objectives 

for noxious or invasive weeds on the forest. These past actions have influenced the existing 

condition or baseline. 

Forest Plan Amendments

The evaluation of how proposed plan amendments may affect noxious weeds is located in the 

“Plants” section of table 71, which describes alternatives B, C, and D sensitive species 

environmental consequences determination. 

Heritage Resources

A summary of the heritage analysis is presented here, and the complete heritage specialist report 

(Gifford et al. 2013) is incorporated by reference.

The ponderosa pine ecosystem is the focus of the 4FRI forest restoration project. The area of 

potential effect (APE) is 988,930 acres. Within the project area, cultural resources range 

temporally from prehistoric times through the historic period and into the modern day. Prehistoric 

sites include rock art, cliff dwellings, pit houses, multiple room pueblos, artifact scatters, and 

traditional cultural properties. Historic resources consist of logging railroad grades, trails and 

historic roads, cabins and homesteads, Forest Service administrative sites, Basque sheep camps, 

mining camps, Civilian Conservation Corps remains, and Native American shelters such as sweat 

lodges and brush shelters. 

Throughout the analysis area, archaeological site densities range from 1 to 66 sites per square 

mile (from the 4FRI heritage site density model—see Gifford 2011 for a full explanation of how 

the model was developed). Within the analysis area, there are 5,513 recorded archaeological sites 

with 123,716 acres on the Coconino NF and 214,485 acres on the Kaibab NF that have been 

previously surveyed for cultural resources. There are 15 sites on the Kaibab NF and 13 sites on 

the Coconino NF that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There are 

257 sites on the Kaibab NF and 1,007 sites on the Coconino NF that are eligible for the NRHP. 

Cultural resources also include Native American traditional use areas and places known as 

traditional cultural properties (TCPs). These TCPs hold a central and important position in Native 

American culture. Three prominent examples found within the project area are the San Francisco 

Peaks on the Coconino National Forest and Red Butte and Bill Williams Mountain on the Kaibab 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

260 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

NF. See the tribal relations report and appendix A in the heritage report for more information on 

management of TCPs).

Heritage Strategy

The proposed activity in the 4FRI DEIS includes ground-disturbing activities such as mechanical 

thinning, hand thinning, stream restoration, temporary road construction, existing and temporary 

road closures, fencing, and prescribed fires. In consultation with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer (AZ SHPO), the Coconino and Kaibab forests developed a document called 

the “Four Forest Restoration Initiative Heritage Resources Strategy and NHPA Compliance” 

(Gifford 2011), otherwise referred to as the “heritage strategy.” There were three elements 

identified in the heritage strategy that would assist in reaching a no adverse effect determination 

for this project.

• The first is the focus on appendix J of the “Southwestern Region Heritage Programmatic 

Agreement.” Appendix J outlines the consultation protocols and strategies for 

implementing large-scale fuels reduction, vegetation treatment, and habitat improvement 

projects. 

• The second component is the archaeological site density model created by the Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs. This model, created using existing site inventory data, identified high 

and low site density areas and assists in the design of survey strategies for specific project

locations. 

• The third aspect is the heritage strategy. Following appendix J, areas of intensive ground 

disturbances and areas of high site densities receive 100 percent survey. However, as per 

the strategy, areas of low site density can receive up to 25 percent of new or additional 

survey if existing surveys are not considered adequate. Sample survey needs are to be 

determined by heritage resources managers on a project-by-project or individual task 

order basis (see Gifford 2011 for details on the survey strategies).

Phased Section 106 Compliance

Because of the size of this undertaking, implementation would be phased over several years. 

Appendix J allows for the phasing of Section 106 compliance evaluations. Appendix J, the 

heritage strategy, and the initial 4FRI Section 106 report describe the methods to be used to 

achieve a no adverse effect determination for 4FRI as a whole.

Individual task orders or specific project areas would be evaluated by forest heritage staff for 

inventory needs and then surveyed to the appropriate level as defined in the heritage strategy. A 

Section 106 report would be produced for each project area as they are identified. Consultation 

with the AZ SHPO and tribes would be completed prior to implementing each task order. 

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences for alternatives B, C, and D include applying the design 

features and mitigation measures displayed in appendix C of the DEIS.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 261

Alternative A

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing fuels in and around archaeological sites would continue to increase. This may result in 

more frequent and intense wildfires which could result in site and artifact damage such as spalling 

of rock art and cracking of artifacts as well as post-fire erosion. Fire suppression actions, 

particularly bulldozer operations, may also damage or destroy surface and subsurface 

archaeological sites resulting in the loss of those resources and their research potential. 

Additionally, sites are more visible after a fire, especially high-intensity fires, and much more 

vulnerable to vandalism.

Soil erosion due to uncharacteristic wildfires could have both a direct and indirect effect on 

cultural resources. Rain and snowmelt can cause channels to form within denuded sites, or mud 

slides from nearby slopes may deposit soil and debris within site boundaries leading to the loss of 

data potential and characteristics that make historic properties eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places.

Environmental Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Prior to initiating project-specific task orders, the forests would consult with federally recognized 

tribes to identify traditional use areas and, if necessary, develop project-specific mitigation 

measures to accommodate traditional use of the forest by tribal members.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects

Unnatural fuel loading should be reduced in and around National Register listed or eligible 

cultural resources. Uncharacteristic fire behavior should also be reduced. Thinning and lowintensity prescribed fires could reduce current fuel loads which would then assist in preventing 

extensive heat damage during wildfires. There would be less need for fire suppression activities, 

consequently reducing the threat of ground-disturbing activities like bulldozer fire line 

construction. 

Mechanical thinning treatments, temporary road construction, and closures, skidding, and other 

ground-disturbing activities associated with 4FRI would have the potential to affect cultural 

resources. Impacts could include rutting, erosion, dislocation, or breakage of artifacts and 

features, and destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. Using prescribed fire also has the potential 

to affect fire sensitive sites. These potential effects would be addressed through site avoidance 

strategies and implementing the site protection measures listed in the “Southwestern Region 

Programmatic Agreement” (PA) (appendix J and in the heritage strategy). 

Initial reduction of heavy fuels may lead to an increase in site visibility, public visitation, and 

possible vandalism. Those issues would be reduced through management actions that include 

project specific as well as long-term monitoring. Initial entry prescribed burns would be 

periodically revisited and burned to reduce natural fuel accumulation, and archaeological site 

monitoring would be part of that process. Possible road decommissioning could also assist in 

limiting access to some archaeological sites, thus reducing post-burn visibility and visitation at 

those sites.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

262 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

There is the possibility that cultural resources would be discovered during project 

implementation. Discovery guidance is found in appendix J of the Southwestern Region PA. 

See the “Tribal Relations” section and “Environmental Justice” section in the economics report 

regarding impacts to Native American traditional use areas and impacts from smoke on tribal 

communities. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative includes a strategy for preserving an undisclosed numbers of large trees (large 

tree implementation plan) while meeting restoration objectives. It is more of a socio-political 

concern to contemporary culture rather than an impact to historic properties. Many of the grounddisturbing activities associated with this alternative would be similar to those identified in 

alternative B, and would have the same potential to affect cultural resources. Key components of 

this alternative include additional mechanical and prescribed fire on specific grasslands, and 

wildlife and watershed research and restoration. This alternative includes similar actions as 

alternative B, while having additional specific desired conditions for large trees and expanded 

grassland restoration as the primary differences.

One concern for heritage resources under this alternative is the increases in mechanical 

treatments. The 4FRI heritage survey strategy would address this concern. Per the strategy, 

intensive ground-disturbing activities would be inventoried for historic properties at 100 percent 

prior to implementation, thus identifying cultural resources prior to ground-disturbing actions. If 

additional high impact or intense mechanical treatments would be needed under this alternative, 

additional archaeological survey would be necessary per the heritage survey strategy. Potential 

effects to cultural resources would be avoided using the protection measures in the heritage 

protocol and Section 106 clearance report, or the adverse effects would be mitigated.

One potential benefit of this alternative would be the preservation of culturally modified trees. 

The 4FRI heritage survey strategy incorporates various levels of survey but not 100 percent 

across the entire project area. Since sample surveys do not identify all historic resources, leaving 

a larger number of 16-inch and above trees in place may preserve some of these unrecorded 

culturally modified trees. Conversely, one negative aspect of leaving large trees in place was 

noted during the bark beetle infestation on the Coconino NF. During that period, a number of 

larger ponderosa pines died in drier parts of the forest. Some of those trees had taken root in 

archaeological sites. When these dead trees fell, they uprooted portions of sites. Both of these 

examples are very limited in scale and would be minimized through implementing the 4FRI 

project. Landscape-level forest restoration could potentially decrease bark beetle impacts through 

a healthier forest and culturally modified trees on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs occur primarily 

in aspen stands, not ponderosa pine, the focus of this project. Therefore, any effects under the 

4FRI would be very limited. Also see the “Tribal Relations” section and “Environmental Justice” 

section in the economics report for potential impacts to tribes.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 263

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative D focuses on reducing prescribed fire in comparison to the proposed action (B). The 

alternative was developed in response to social concerns regarding smoke impacts in and around 

the area. Actions under alternative D are similar to those found in the proposed action (alternative 

B) with the principle difference being decreases in levels of prescribed fire and other options to 

remove thinning debris. Potential impacts to cultural resources would be similar to alternative B.

The heritage strategy is flexible enough to respond to all of the various levels of implementation 

under alternatives B, C, and D.

Alternative D may benefit some fire sensitive cultural resources in areas of the forest with lower 

site densities. Per the heritage strategy, burn units with high site densities would be surveyed at 

100 percent. In areas of low density, the heritage strategy option would be to survey an additional 

25 percent if necessary. Current forest data, along with the 4FRI site density models and local 

heritage personnel’s resource knowledge, would be used to identify and protect the majority of 

fire sensitive sites found in both high and low density areas. Nonetheless, there would always the 

possibility that small numbers of these fire sensitive sites could be affected and a reduction in 

prescribed fire may assist in preserving them.

A 30 percent reduction of prescribed fire would leave a significant amount of post-thinning debris 

and slash on the forests. Without prescribed fire, actions identified in the alternative such as 

chipping, shredding, mastication, and offsite removal of material would be required. Some of 

these activities may include ground-disturbing actions that could have an effect on cultural 

resources. Forest and district archaeological staff could address these effects by increasing the 

amount of archaeological survey within the area of these ground-disturbing activities and 

ensuring that cultural resources are avoided or the adverse effects are mitigated.

Consultation with Native Americans has indicated that some groups in surrounding communities 

have concerns regarding the amount of smoke that may result from project prescribed fire. The 

proposed reduction in burning under this alternative addresses those concerns. Also, see the 

“Tribal Relations” section and “Environmental Justice” information in the economics report for 

additional discussion about smoke impacts to tribal communities.

Forest Plan

For all alternatives, the potential impact to heritage resources from the proposed forest plan 

amendments is included in the “Tribal Relations” section.

Cumulative Effects

The spatial scale for cumulative effects is the area of potential effect (APE). Past, present, and 

foreseeable projects in appendix F of the DEIS were reviewed and used for the analysis.

Alternative A

Under the no action alternative, the proposed large-scale, landscape level forest health project 

would not occur, and there would be no additional effects as a result of this project. The present 

and foreseeable future undertakings would continue to have the potential to affect cultural 

resources. These undertakings will go through the Section 106 review process and all cultural 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

264 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

resources that are listed on the National Register or eligible for the register would be avoided or 

the adverse effects would be mitigated. Any cumulative effects to cultural resources that could 

occur would not be considered to be adverse. High-intensity wildfires would threaten cultural 

resources because fuels will continue to accumulate and sites located within and near burn areas 

could be subjected to a potential increases in soil erosion. 

Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D have the potential to increase the amount of ground-disturbing activities, 

including mechanical treatments, increased prescribed fire acres in alternative B, temporary road 

construction, skidding, stream restoration, fence construction, and other ground-disturbing 

activities. Alternative D may involve other means of slash and debris removal. Actions such as 

chipping, shredding, and mastication as well as removal of material offsite may include an 

increase in ground-disturbing actions. In alternatives B, C, and D, protection measures (as 

described the heritage strategy and Section 106 report) include the presence of archaeological 

monitors during mechanical activities, hand thinning within site boundaries, keeping grounddisturbing activities out of site boundaries by flagging and avoiding the sites, and post-prescribed 

fire site monitoring. These measures would be used to minimize the effects of low-intensity 

burns. Also, as noted for alternative A, all undertakings would go through the Section 106 review 

process and all cultural resources that are listed on the National Register or eligible for the 

National Register would be avoided or the adverse effects would be mitigated. The potential 

cumulative effects to cultural resources from increased ground-disturbing activities and 

prescribed fire resulting from these alternatives as well as the past, present, and forseeable future 

projects are, therefore, not considered to be adverse.

There would be a possibility for an increase in archaeological site vandalism resulting from 

increased visibility once the project is implemented. This visibility would be greater than that 

caused by past, present, or foreseeable future undertakings in the area. However, protection 

measures such as reducing vegetation on sites, or incorporating sites into wildlife bridge habitat 

locations, for example, would help to reduce the visibility of sites that were avoided during 

project implementation. In addition, the management practice of implementing low to moderate 

intensity prescribed fire typically does not sterilize soil or completely remove ground fuels like a 

high-intensity, uncontrolled wildfire. Low-intensity fires also tend to leave some trees in place 

that would eventually cover the surface with a recurring needle cast so artifacts will not be as 

visible. Sites are periodically monitored both during project implementation as well as for NHPA 

Section 110 purposes by Agency and volunteer personnel. Proposed road closures would reduce 

access to some of these areas as well, reducing the potential for increased vandalism. The 

cumulative effect of increased visibility is not considered to be adverse.

The cumulative effects on cultural resources resulting from any potential increase in erosion are 

also minimal. Reducing fuel loads and implementing low to moderate intensity prescribed fires 

would not cause soil sterilization or hydrophobic soils as high-intensity wildfires would. As noted 

previously, low-intensity prescribed fires leave some vegetation in place and revegetation occurs 

soon afterwards if soils are not sterilized. However, as implementation occurs, archaeologists 

would monitor for erosion concerns examining sites in the project areas, focused on slopes, 

drainages, and other high probability areas with cultural resources present. The cumulative effects 

to cultural resources caused by an increase in erosion are not considered to be adverse.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 265

Overall, the cumulative effects on cultural resources as a result of alternatives B, C, and D are not 

considered to be adverse.

Tribal Relations

A summary of the tribal relations analysis, including the consultation process (table 80), is 

presented here. The complete specialist report (Johnson et al. 2013) is incorporated by reference. 

The 4FRI project is situated across a landscape that is aboriginal to at least 16 American Indian 

tribes. Many of these tribal aboriginal lands overlap one another and areas of prominence which 

are considered sacred by tribes here in the southwestern United States. American Indian Law 

requires consultation between the U.S. Forest Service and federally recognized American Indian 

tribes; however, recognizing that we share a common interest to maintain the health of the forest, 

consultation extends beyond the legal requirements. With the knowledge that American Indian 

people have inhabited the 4FRI area for centuries, tribal consultation will consider traditional 

knowledge in order to restore and maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. 

Consultation Process

The following tribes and tribal chapters who have historic ties and an interest in the Coconino and 

Kaibab National Forests were consulted with (table 80) and include: Kaibab Band of Paiute 

Indians, Navajo Nation including Coppermine, Coalmine, Naness, Lechee, Leupp, Bodaway, 

Cameron, Tuba City, Dilkon and Tolani Lake Chapters, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, San Juan 

Southern Paiute, White Mountain Apache, Yavapai-Apache Nation, San Carlos Apache, Hualapai, 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Havasupai, Tonto Apache, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Hopi, and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. 

Tribal consultation is primarily direct face-to-face meetings between federally recognized tribes 

and the Federal government. Consultation may include sharing of information through letter 

carried mail, email, and followup telephone calls which supplement the face-to-face meetings. 

Tribes that do not participate in tribal consultation continue to receive information via email and 

hand delivered mail. Information is shared unless a tribe asks specifically to not be informed. The 

tribal relations specialist report (project record) contains an up-to-date complete listing of 

information sharing and consultations with federally recognized tribes regarding the 4FRI. Tribal 

consultation will be ongoing throughout the entire span of the 4FRI project. 

Contemporary Uses and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)

Traditional Cultural Properties: American Indian resources may consist of shrines, trails and 

historic roads, and shelters such as sweat lodges and brush shelters. Traditional use areas and 

places are known as traditional cultural properties/places (TCPs). TCPs are places traditionally 

used by cultural groups over generations. TCPs within the project area include the San Francisco 

Peaks on the Coconino NF, and Red Butte and Bill Williams Mountain on the Kaibab NF. Natural 

springs are also considered TCPs and/or sacred sites by some tribes. Many plants are gathered for 

ceremonial use on or near TCPs. See appendix A of the heritage report for additional discussion 

on management of TCPs. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

266 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 80. Summary of 4FRI project tribal consultation

Date Tribe(s) Type of Contact Location

September 

10, 2009

Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Pueblo of Zuni, 

Navajo Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott

The Kaibab NF supervisor sent an invitation to 

seven federally recognized tribes to discuss the

4FRI and other forest projects.

NA

September 

28, 2009

Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, and Pueblo of Zuni An initial presentation on the 4FRI was given 

during the Kaibab NF intertribal meeting. 

Kaibab NF

May 5, 2010 Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, Hualapai, Yavapai-Apache, Navajo Nation, and YavapaiPrescott The forest emailed information on the 4FRI as 

an early “heads up” on upcoming consultation.

NA

January 27, 

2011

Hopi, Navajo Nation, Hualapai, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, YavapaiPrescott, Yavapai-Apache, Ft. McDowell Yavapai, Tonto Apache, White 

Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Havasupai, emailed to Hopi, Navajo 

Nation, Yavapai-Prescott, Ft. McDowell Yavapai, Hualapai, Havasupai, White 

Mt Apache, Yavapai-Apache, and Pueblo of Zuni

The forests mailed scoping letters to tribal 

leaders and emailed letter to representatives 

(also see chapter 1 of the DEIS).

NA

February 8, 

2011

Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni

The Kaibab NF supervisor sent a letter to seven 

federally recognized tribes with a copy of the 

SOPA and notification of the 4FRI project. 

NA

May 12, 2011 Hopi, Navajo Nation, Hualapai, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, YavapaiPrescott, Yavapai-Apache, Ft. McDowell Yavapai, Tonto Apache, White 

Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Havasupai, emailed to Hopi, Navajo 

Nation, Yavapai-Prescott, Ft. McDowell Yavapai, Hualapai, Havasupai, White 

Mt Apache, Yavapai-Apache, and Pueblo of Zuni.

The forests sent the heritage report. NA

August 22, 

2011

Navajo Nation Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, White Mountain Apache, 

Yavapai-Apache Nation, San Carlos Apache, Hualapai Tribe, Yavapai-Prescott 

Indian Tribe, Havasupai, Tonto Apache, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, Hopi 

Tribe, and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.

The second 4FRI scoping letter was sent to 20 

tribal leaders (also see chapter 1 of the DEIS). 

No additional comments were received. See 

chapter 1 for a summary of concerns and issues 

raised throughout consultation. 

NA

October 4, 

2012

Havasupai The Kaibab NF supervisor provided an update 

on the 4FRI project to the tribal council.

Supai, AZ
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 267

Contemporary Uses: The entire 4FRI project area is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is 

aboriginal land to the consulting tribes. Along with aboriginal ties to the land, many tribal 

members also use the forest for traditional resources and ceremonies and for gathering medicinal 

plants for other traditional and cultural purposes. Traditional gatherings and ceremonies are 

conducted throughout the forests and may or may not occur at the knowledge of the land 

manager. Additionally these activities may occur over the span of an hour, to several hours or 

several days.

The forests recognize the importance of maintaining these traditions to area tribes and will 

accommodate traditional use of Forest Service lands by American Indians provided it complies 

with existing laws and regulations. In an attempt to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between 

traditional tribal activities and operations related to the 4FRI, consultation and coordination is a 

critical component between the tribes and forests regarding the timing and locations of specific 

planned activities and operations. 

Years of government-to-government consultation have identified numerous traditional uses in or 

near the 4FRI project area. Examples of these uses include collection of forest products such as 

medicinal plants, tree boughs, ceremonial firewood, and pinyon nuts (see table 81), and ongoing 

use of ceremonial sites, shrines, and traditional gathering areas. Plant collecting is almost always 

conducted in more than one area in order to not deplete any particular plant species. In some 

cases, specific traditional use areas have been identified on the forests through project-level 

consultation. However, it is assumed most traditional use areas have not yet been identified. 

While some traditional uses consistently occur in one location, others may occur in a variety of 

locations based on the availability of resources. 

Table 81. Example of forest products and their traditional use

Forest Product Use

Juniper boughs Shade structures

Small fir trees Ceremony dances

Fir, pinyon, and juniper boughs Ceremony dances

Cattails Ceremony dances

Poles Corrals, shades

Green oak up to 6′′ Bows, Kiva ladder rungs

Ponderosa logs Traditional ceremonial structures

Willow branches Basketry

Yucca Basket, soap

Threats to Contemporary Uses and TCPs

Wildfires are a threat to all forest products; however, fire suppression in the forest has also caused 

damage in the form of preventing the healthy production of juniper boughs, limiting the growth 

and production of small fir trees, and limiting the number of large ponderosa logs for ceremonial 

structures. Habitat for some native plants desired by tribal traditional collectors is disappearing 

and natural springs are drying up due to overstocked forests. Some of the affected plant collection 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

268 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

areas and springs that were used historically still have associated cultural values that are 

important to the tribes. Concerns expressed by tribes during tribal consultation include: 

• TCPs are at risk of being damaged or lost from high-severity fire;

• Springs and plant collection areas are at risk of being damaged or destroyed by highseverity fire; 

• Overstocked stands are reducing the sunlight available for cultural and medicinal plants; 

• Springs that are important to tribal ceremonies are drying up; 

• A lack of low-intensity fire is reducing regeneration of plant collection areas; 

• Smoke may affect some tribal communities; 

• Tribes need access for ceremonies and traditional gathering; and 

• Tribes are concerned about the preservation of cultural resources.

Environmental Consequences

The following mitigation (see appendix C in the DEIS for complete list) are common to 

alternatives B–D. The environmental consequences are based on applying these measures.

• Consult with Native Americans when projects and activities are planned in sites or areas 

of known religious or cultural significance (HR/TR-2); 

• Project undertakings would be inventoried for cultural resources and areas of Native 

American religious use (HR/TR-3); 

• Prior to initiating project-specific task orders, the forests would consult with federally 

recognized tribes to identify traditional use areas and, if necessary, develop projectspecific mitigation measures to accommodate traditional use of the forest by tribal 

members (HR-TR-7); 

• When areas are selected for treatment, detailed maps of the area would be presented to 

tribes through ongoing tribal consultation to determine if other sensitive areas of tribal 

importance could potentially be impacted (HR-TR-8); and 

• Treatment timing would be adjusted to coincide with seasonal plant gathering and 

ceremonial use (HR-TR-9). 

Alternative A

TCPs are at risk from high-severity fire because it can destroy the setting of the TCP including 

seed and habitat for native plants. Soil erosion due to high-severity wildfire could have a direct 

and indirect effect on traditional collecting areas. Rain and snowmelt could cause channels to 

form, or mud slides from nearby slopes could deposit soil and debris over traditional areas

leading to the loss of biological communities for both plant and animal species used by tribes. 

This erosion could negatively impact areas where traditional use plants grow, thereby limiting 

opportunities for collection and traditional use. Additional indirect effects of erosion (as a result 

of wildfire) are damage to cultural resources when they are unearthed and displaced.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 269

In this alternative, overstocked stands would continue to reduce the sunlight available for native 

cultural and medicinal plants. A lack of low-intensity fire would further reduce the regeneration 

of plants collected by native people. Over time, alternative A may result in the reduction of presettlement native plants, some of which have been collected since historical times by American 

Indians for food and medicine. Additionally, as tree density (overstocking) increases, historic 

water sources such as springs and seeps (that are important locations to American Indians) may 

dry up, affecting historic uses.

With continued drying trends across the Southwest, the forests would likely issue forest closures 

and fire restrictions, thus affecting traditional uses and ceremonies. Access could be limited 

during active fire suppression activities.

Alternative B

Alternative B proposes restoration treatments that would result in reduced fuel loading and a 

more open forest structure and pattern. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would reduce 

the potential for uncharacteristically intense fire behavior. This would reduce the potential for 

severe impacts to National Register listed or National Register eligible heritage resources (which 

are known to be of interest to the tribes representing the “footprints of their ancestors”). 

Mechanical treatment and low-intensity prescribed fires would reduce current fuel loads which 

would help to prevent extensive heat damage to traditional collection and gathering areas from 

future wildfires. There would be less need for fire suppression activities, consequently less of a 

threat from ground-disturbing activities like bulldozer fire line construction in sensitive areas. 

Mechanical thinning treatments, temporary road construction, decommissioning, and other 

ground-disturbing activities associated with the 4FRI have potential to affect traditional collecting 

and gathering, ceremonial areas, and TCPs by temporarily displacing collecting gathering and 

ceremonial activities. Impacts would not be as disruptive as those periods of wildfire suppression. 

Access concerns would be addressed through ongoing consultations between the forests and 

American Indian groups. In addition, mitigation was developed to minimize disruption of 

activities and includes adjusting treatment timing to coincide with seasonal plant gathering and 

ceremonial use.

Using prescribed fire also has the potential to affect fire sensitive areas. However, as early as the 

first growing season after the initial reduction of heavy fuels, an increase in understory plant 

growth would be expected. Mechanical treatments may provide better habitat for these plants to 

thrive. Fire and ground disturbance can also enhance certain plant species such as wild tobacco. 

Overall, treatments could provide a prolific diversification of certain plant species. Local tribal 

people could potentially have greater access to collecting areas as existing roads are improved. 

The demand for groundwater that is currently occurring from dense tree growth would be 

reduced. Treatments may promote an increase in water flowing from springs and possibly restore 

springs that have dried up. Activities proposed in alternative B would result in greater opportunity 

for contemporary tribal uses such as native plant collection and enhancement of TCPs such as 

springs. 

All action alternatives (B–D) create the potential for increased smoke. Most of the smoke from 

fire use on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs would carry from the southwest to the northeast and to 

the Havasupai Reservation and western portions of the Navajo Nation Reservation. Many people 

living in these areas are seniors with health conditions and sensitivity to smoke. The effects of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

270 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

limited communications may hinder receiving adequate information about smoke. Some may not 

have access to an Internet Web site to receive information on planned prescribed fires. In 

addition, there may be language barriers and cultural differences. Tribal consultation would 

continue throughout project implementation and will strive to inform tribes on the timing, type, 

and amount of smoke tribes may experience during implementation. See the complete 

environmental justice analysis in the economics report.

Alternative C

Many of the ground-disturbing activities associated with this alternative are similar to those 

identified in alternative B, and have the same potential to affect traditional collecting and 

gathering, ceremonial areas, and TCPs. Key components of this alternative include additional 

acres of mechanical and prescribed fire on specific grasslands, wildlife and watershed research, 

and inclusion of the large tree implementation plan.

One concern for traditional collecting and gathering, ceremonial areas, and TCPs under this 

alternative is the increase in mechanical treatment acres. If additional high impact or intense 

mechanical treatments occur under this alternative, additional tribal consultation would be 

necessary. Protection of cultural resources are discussed in the “Heritage” section (see the 

“Heritage” section and appendix C of the DEIS for additional information).

Alternative D

Alternative D would reduce the use of prescribed fire across the project area in comparison to the 

proposed action (alternative B). This would reduce the potential for smoke to impact tribal 

communities. Potential impacts to traditional collecting and gathering, and ceremonial areas and 

TCPs are the same as described in alternative B.

Forest Plan Amendments – All Alternatives

Amendment Theme—Management in MSO Habitat: The amendments that address 

management in MSO owl habitat (see appendix B) would be primarily related to the definition of 

target and threshold habitat, the size and amount of trees to be cut, prescribed fire and MSO

monitoring. There would be no discernible effects to heritage resources or tribal relations from 

defining target and threshold habitat or MSO owl monitoring. Applying prescribed fire and the 

size and amount of trees to be cut within MSO habitats would have the same direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects as described for each action alternative.

Amendment Theme—Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine with an Open 

Reference Condition Within Goshawk Habitat: These amendments (see appendix B) would

provide desired percentage of interspaces, distance between tree groups, clarification of where 

cover is measured, add definitions, and acreage to be managed in an open condition. There would 

be no discernible effects to heritage resources or tribal relations from these amendments. The 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would be the same as described for each action alternative.

Amendment Theme—Effect Determination for Cultural Resources on the Coconino NF:

This amendment (see appendix B) would delete the standard that would require achieving a “no 

effect” determination and adds the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining standard. 

Currently management actions on the Coconino NF strive to achieve a “no effect” for cultural 

resources; however, during implementation of this project it would be extremely unlikely to ever 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 271

achieve a “no effect” on cultural resources. Though surveys and monitoring of heritage resources 

would occur and BMPs would be implemented, there would be a chance that heritage resources 

would be impacted (see “Heritage Resources” section). There would be no additional discernible 

effects to heritage resources or tribal relations from this amendment. The direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects would be the same as described for each action alternative.

Amendment Theme—Management of the Proposed Garland Prairie RNA on the Kaibab 

NF: This amendment (see appendix B) would add language to allow prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments in order to maintain and/or restore the ecological qualities of the proposed 

RNA. There would be no additional discernible effects to heritage resources and tribal relations 

from this amendment. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would be the same as described

in the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

In alternative A there would be no changes in current management and the forest plans would 

continue to be implemented. Approximately 82,592 acres of vegetation treatments and 96,125 

acres of prescribed fire projects would continue to be implemented adjacent to the treatment area. 

Within the next 5 years, approximately 86,771 acres of vegetation treatments and 142,869 acres 

of prescribed fire and maintenance burning would be implemented adjacent to the treatment area 

by the Forest Service. The Kaibab and Coconino NFs have tribal relations specialists who would 

continue to consult with tribes on the preservation of cultural resources, implementation of 

project activities, and appropriate post-treatment monitoring for these projects.

Over the majority of acres described above, current fuel loads would be expected to decrease over 

time as projects are implemented. This would result in decreased wildfire severity and erosion 

potential. However, traditional use plants, TCPs, and traditional use areas do not occur evenly 

across the area nor do the projects propose to treat those areas equally. Therefore, the cumulative 

impacts under this alternative are limited or unknown. Other prominent landmarks identified as 

TCPs (including springs) in the project area would be left untreated and could be severely 

impacted if a wildfire burned through these areas. If not treated, springs would likely continue to 

dry up or have the potential to be polluted by excessive runoff by flash flooding as a result of rain 

on burned slopes. 

Alternative B has the potential to increase the amount of ground-disturbing activities, including 

mechanical treatments, temporary road construction, skidding, stream restoration, fence 

construction, and other ground-disturbing activities. When considered together with past, present, 

and foreseeable future actions, these activities would have the potential to affect cultural 

resources such as traditional collecting, gathering, ceremonial use areas, and TCPs. All 

undertakings that would have the potential to affect cultural resources would go through tribal 

consultation. In addition, protection measures such as the possibility of tribal monitors during 

mechanical activities, keeping ground-disturbing activities out of sensitive areas by flagging, 

avoiding the sensitive areas, and post-prescribed fire monitoring to assess the effects of the lowintensity fires would help to minimize the effects. The potential cumulative effects to cultural 

resources and TCPs such as springs from increased ground-disturbing activities and the use of 

prescribed fire resulting from this alternative are, therefore, not considered to be adverse. The 

cumulative effect of increased visibility is not considered to be adverse.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

272 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The cumulative effects on TCPs, gathering, and ceremonial areas resulting from any potential 

increase in erosion would also be minimal. Reducing fuel loads and implementing low to 

moderate intensity prescribed fires would not cause soil sterilization or hydrophobic soils as highintensity wildfires do. Low intensity prescribed fires would leave some vegetation in place and 

revegetation would occur soon afterwards if soils were not sterilized. However, as 

implementation occurs, monitors would check for erosion concerns by examining culturally 

sensitive locations like TCPs and ceremonial sites in the project areas, including focusing on 

slopes, drainages, and other high probability areas with cultural resources present. The 

cumulative effects to cultural resources caused by an increase in erosion are not considered to be 

adverse.

In alternative C, the addition of the LRTP would have little additional effect on cultural 

resources, TCPs, ceremonial areas, and gathering and collecting areas. However, an increase in 

prescribed fire acres, as well as similar actions identified under alternative B—such as 

mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, stream restoration, and fence construction—would have 

the potential to affect these resources. These issues are identified under the cumulative effects 

section under alternative B and not repeated here. As noted previously, all undertakings that have 

the potential to affect cultural resources would go through tribal consultation. An increase in these 

types of activities would not result in an adverse effect to cultural resources as long as tribal 

consultation is conducted prior to project implementation, protection measures are imposed, and 

post-project implementation monitoring is conducted when appropriate. 

As with alternatives B and C, similar increases in activities under alternative D such as 

mechanical treatments and ground disturbances can add to the effects on cultural resources. 

Additionally, specific to this alternative, is a reduction in the prescribed fire acres which may 

involve other means of slash and debris removal. Actions such as chipping, shredding, and 

mastication as well as removal of material offsite may include an increase in ground-disturbing 

actions. As noted above, all undertakings that have the potential to affect cultural resources would 

not have an adverse effect if the measures identified above are implemented. Protection of 

cultural resources measures are discussed in the “Heritage” section (see “Heritage” section in 

chapter 3 and appendix C of the DEIS). Overall, the cumulative effects on cultural resources as a 

result of alternative D are not considered to be adverse.

Socioeconomics

A summary of the socioeconomic report is presented here. The specialist report (Jaworski 2013) 

is incorporated by reference. The analysis describes the current conditions and trends related to 

the social and economic environment of the planning area, including: population and 

demographic changes, potential environmental justice populations, and employment and income 

conditions. Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 with 2010 

data. Economic efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver Version 6. Social impacts use 

the baseline social conditions presented in the “Affected Environment” section, National Visitor 

Use Monitoring (NVUM) profiles (USDA 2011a and USDA 2011b), and information from the 

Coconino and Kaibab economic and social sustainability assessments (USDA 2010, 2008 ) to 

discern the primary values that the forests provide to area residents and visitors.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 273

Affected Environment

Communities in the vicinity of proposed treatments include Flagstaff, Munds Park, Mormon 

Lake, Tusayan, and Williams, Arizona. Much of the related processing of the 4FRI forest products 

is expected to occur in Winslow, Arizona. 

These communities are heavily influenced by their proximity to protected public lands, 

particularly Grand Canyon National Park. Tourism is a major economic driver, particularly in 

Tusayan and Williams. The economies are increasingly dependent on management, education, 

and tourism sectors, while consumptive natural resource industries have declined. Over the past 

20 years, the population in the study area has grown substantially, indicating that the area offers 

both economic opportunity and natural amenities. 

Population

The study area is home to 4,270,020 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Table 82 displays 

population data for the counties, State, and nation in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Maricopa County is 

by far the largest county in the study area. Maricopa County alone accounts for approximately 60 

percent of Arizona’s population. All counties within the study area are fast growing (over 10 

percent population growth in a 10-year period). Population growth in Yavapai and Maricopa 

Counties was similar from 1990 to 2010, growing approximately twice as fast as Navajo and 

Coconino Counties. While Maricopa County’s growth is driven by economic diversity and 

activity, Yavapai, Coconino and Navajo Counties’ growth is more amenity-based because of the 

easy access to open space and Federal lands. Slower growth in Navajo and Coconino Counties 

reflect their lower population density and corresponding lower levels of public services like 

health care and transportation. In Yavapai County, both the population density and median age are 

much higher than Navajo and Coconino Counties, reflecting the influence of retirees on the 

county’s population growth.

Table 82. Population change 1990 to 2010

Geographic 

Area

1990 

Population

2000 

Population

Percent 

Growth

1990–2000

2010 

Population

Percent 

Growth

2000–2010

Coconino County 96,591 116,320 20.4% 134,421 15.6%

Maricopa County 2,122,101 3,072,149 44.8% 3,817,117 24.2%

Navajo County 77,658 97,470 25.5% 107,449 10.2%

Yavapai County 107,714 167,517 55.5% 211,033 26.0%

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0% 6,392,017 24.6%

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2% 308,745,538 9.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Economic Diversity, Employment, and Income

Per capita income in the study area is similar to per capita income in the State and nation. Navajo 

and Coconino Counties have lower per capita income than the other study area counties, the 

State, and the nation (table 83). This is consistent with the finding in the “Environmental Justice” 

section that Navajo and Coconino Counties have higher poverty rates relative to the study area, 

the State, and the nation. A greater proportion of personal income in Navajo County is made up of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

274 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

nonlabor income (such as transfer payments), which indicates that low-income assistance 

programs may be a greater portion of household income. Yavapai County has a slightly higher 

rate of nonlabor income but given the demographics of this county and its higher per capita 

income, these payments are more likely to consist of earned interest and social security payments 

to retirees. Another indicator that poverty is the greatest concern in Navajo County is that its 

unemployment rate has consistently been 30 to 50 percent higher than the other counties in the 

study area.

Table 83. Per capita income, labor, and nonlabor income, and unemployment

Geographic Area Per Capita Income 

(2010 Dollars)

Labor

(2009)

Nonlabor 

(2009)

Unemployment 

(2010)

Coconino County 19,703 62% 38% 8.9%

Maricopa County 25,350 66% 34% 9.1%

Navajo County 16,745 47% 53% 15.7%

Yavapai County 22,619 43% 57% 10.5%

Arizona 23,618 62% 38% 10.0%

United States 26,059 64% 36% 9.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

Maricopa County has the most diverse economy in the study area, with only retail trade and 

government sectors accounting for more than 10 percent of employment. The other counties in 

the study area have lower economic diversity with some distinctive differences in sectors of 

employment. Yavapai County, as would be expected of a retirement community, has the largest 

percentage of its employment in health and social services compared to the rest of the study area. 

This diversity reflects the demographics driving the local economy. By contrast, Coconino 

County, which has a larger tourism base to its economy, has the highest percentage of 

accommodations and food services and arts, entertainment, and recreation within the study area. 

Navajo County has a smaller percentage of employment in service industries that would support 

tourism or retirement age in-migration, but has the highest employment rates in government and 

consumptive natural resource sectors (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining). 

Wage differences and higher unemployment may also be tied to these factors. Within Navajo 

County, poverty, unemployment, and income appear to be unevenly distributed geographically. 

Most employment centers are south of I-40 in Winslow and other more centralized communities. 

North of I-40, the county is dominated by three Indian reservations (see figure 46 for race and 

ethnicity information) where there are fewer employment opportunities, lower population density, 

and less opportunity for amenity-based population and economic growth as seen in parts of 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties. 

Wildfire and Forestry Related Economic Environment

Table 84 shows the economic contribution of forestry related sectors to the local economy. In 

terms of employment, forestry related sectors account for approximately one-third of 1 percent of 

study area employment. This is less than the Statewide contribution, where forestry related jobs 

account for approximately 0.63 percent of total employment. The same trend is observed in 

employee compensation and output—the forestry sector in the study area is relatively smaller 

than in other parts of the State. However, the economic contribution of forestry related sectors in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 275

Navajo County is proportionally greater than the economic contribution of forestry related sectors 

in the other study area counties and the State. In addition, a new wood products plant is planned 

for the Winslow area which would further increase forestry related employment in Navajo 

County. These findings indicate that the study area is currently less specialized in forestry than 

the rest of the State, except for Navajo County. 

Table 84. Economic contribution of forestry related sectors in the study area

Geographic 

Area

Employment

Employee 

Compensation

(in USD Millions)

Output 

(in USD Millions)

Value Percent

of Total Value Percentof Total Value Percent of Total

Coconino County 182 0.25 4 0.13 15 0.19

Maricopa County 6,784 0.31 192 0.20 801 0.26

Navajo County 683 2.04 33 2.49 245 6.56

Yavapai County 154 0.22 5 0.22 12 0.16

Study Area Total 7,803 0.33 221 0.22 955 0.29

Arizona 20,169 0.63 575 0.42 1,713 1.26

Source: MIG 2009

Annually, millions of dollars are spent suppressing wildfires in the United States. In 2007, there 

were 27 large fires in the U.S. that cost $547 million to suppress (WFLC 2010). Between 2000 

and 2008, the percentage of the Forest Service budget spent on extinguishing wildfires expanded 

from 25 to 44 percent (WFLC 2010). Furthermore, suppression costs account for only a fraction 

of the total cost of wildfires. The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (WFLC) estimates that 

total wildfire related expenses range from 2 to 30 times the reported suppression costs (2010).

A principal reason for the increasing cost is the growing number of homes located in the 

wildland-urban interface. Suppression activities are frequently undertaken when wildfire 

threatens private property. A century of fire suppression has led to increased fuels and, therefore, 

frequency of high-intensity wildfire. The spread of the WUI has increased the probability that 

wildfires will occur near private residences. These two factors—the growth of the WUI and the 

use of suppression tactics—increase the cost of wildfire and the importance of forestry treatments 

to reduce fuels that have increased high-intensity fires. Table 85 presents the extent of the WUI in 

the study area counties and the western United States.

One-quarter of Coconino County homes, nearly 20 percent of Navajo County homes, and 

approximately 10 percent of Yavapai County homes are located within the WUI. Both Coconino 

and Yavapai Counties are also in the top quintile for existing fire risk. These factors make it more 

likely the Coconino and Yavapai Counties will experience large, expensive wildfires. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

276 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 85. Wildland-urban interface, planning area, and westwide (2000)

Geographic Area WUI Area 

with Homes

WUI Homes as Percent 

of Total Homes

Westwide Rank by 

Existing Wildfire Risk

Coconino County 21.5% 25.6 55 of 413

Navajo County 26.5% 18.7 93 of 413

Maricopa County 16.9% 0.3 161 of 413

Yavapai County 23.5% 9.7 71 of 413

Western U.S. 13.9% 3.9 NA

Source: Guide et al. 2008

Nonmarket Values

The economic value of Forest Service management is not entirely captured in market 

transactions. Much of the value of national forests is “nonmarket” in nature—meaning that many 

of the benefits that forests provide to humans do not have a price. The lack of a price, however, 

should not be equated with an absence of value. Indeed, nonmarket values from forests provide 

economic benefits to adjacent communities and forest visitors. Healthy forests provide numerous 

ecosystem services, including clean water and air, biodiversity, forest products, and many other 

goods and services. 

Where appropriate, discussion of how the alternatives may affect nonmarket values is presented.

However, due to the qualitative nature of these discussions, direct comparisons between changes 

in market and nonmarket values are generally not possible. 

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898. This order directs Federal 

agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and 

low-income communities. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and lowincome populations. 

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The CEQ has interpreted health effects with a broad definition: “Such effects may 

include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or social impacts on minority communities, 

low-income communities, or Indian Tribes ...when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on 

the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) 

data reported in figure 46, study area counties differ substantially in their racial and ethnic 

composition. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 277

Figure 46. Race and ethnicity

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1 

Coconino and Navajo Counties have high concentrations of American Indian residents, due to the 

presence of five reservations in Coconino County and three reservations in Navajo County. 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties also contain Indian reservations; however, their concentrations of 

American Indian residents are small relative to Coconino County, Navajo County, and Arizona.11

Maricopa County has the highest proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents in the study area, 

although it is equivalent to Arizona’s proportion (29.6 percent). In contrast, Yavapai County is 

less diverse than both the State and nation. Approximately 90 percent of Yavapai County residents 

self-identify as white. As a result, environmental justice issues are more likely to occur in 

Coconino and Maricopa Counties than Yavapai County. However, a finding of low racial/ethnic 

diversity does not eliminate the need to consider potential disproportionate impacts of Forest 

Service management actions. A county may have a low overall concentration of minority 

 

11 Coconino County contains all or part of the Navajo Indian Reservation, Hualapai Indian Reservation, 

Hopi Indian Reservation, Havasupai Indian Reservation, and Kaibab Indian Reservation. Navajo County 

contains part of the Navajo Indian Reservation, Hopi Indian Reservation, and Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation. Maricopa County contains all or part of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila River 

Indian Community, and the Salt River-Pima Indian Community. Yavapai County contains all or part of 

the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation, the Yavapai-Apache Nation Indian Reservation, the Hualapai 

Indian Reservation, and the Camp Verde Indian Reservation.

0.0% 40.0% 80.0% 120.0% 160.0%

Coconino County

Navajo County

Maricopa County

Yavapai County

Arizona

United States

Coconino

County

Navajo

County

Maricopa

County

Yavapai

County Arizona United

States

White 61.7% 49.3% 73.0% 89.3% 73.0% 72.4%

Black or African American 1.2% 0.9% 5.0% 0.6% 4.1% 12.6%

American Indian and Alaska

Native 27.3% 43.4% 2.1% 1.7% 4.6% 0.9%

Asian 1.4% 0.5% 3.5% 0.8% 2.8% 4.8%

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

Some Other Race 5.2% 3.4% 12.8% 4.9% 11.9% 6.2%

Two or More Races 3.1% 2.5% 3.5% 2.5% 3.4% 2.9%

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 13.5% 10.8% 29.6% 13.6% 29.6% 16.3%

Race and Ethnicity
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

278 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

residents, but still have areas with a high concentration of minority residents who could be 

adversely affected by management actions.

The incidence of poverty in Coconino and Navajo Counties is not evenly distributed among racial 

and ethnic groups. Approximately 50 percent of American Indian residents in Coconino County 

and 70 percent of American Indian residents in Navajo County live in poverty (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). The high proportion of American Indian residents in these counties, therefore, 

increases the poverty rate relative to other study area counties and the State.

Based on the minority status and poverty data (see specialist report), Coconino County appears 

most at risk for environmental justice issues. The largest minority group in the county, American 

Indians, also experience a very high poverty rate. Furthermore, Coconino County contains the 

most acreage that could be affected by the first stage of the 4FRI, which suggests that the 

consequences of management actions would be felt most acutely by Coconino County residents. 

In contrast, although Navajo County also has a high proportion of American Indian residents and 

a high poverty rate, the first stage of the 4FRI treatments would not occur in the county. Navajo 

County would be chiefly affected by employment associated with the proposed plant in Winslow. 

In response to a comment from the June 2012 NEPA update public meeting, the possibility of 

smoke related environmental justice consequences in Snowflake, Arizona, were evaluated. The 

community does not have a meaningfully greater percentage of minority residents than the State, 

and Snowflake has a smaller proportion of individuals living in poverty than either the State or 

nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In addition, the community is geographically distant from the 

project area and, therefore, unlikely to experience acute smoke effects. As a result, Snowflake is 

not considered an environmental justice community in this analysis. 

The air quality analysis finds that Flagstaff, Williams, Verde Valley, and Grand Canyon National 

Park are smoke sensitive areas within proximity to the proposed treatments. The communities of 

Camp Verde, Cornville, Cottonwood, and Flagstaff are expected to be affected by the proposed 

prescribed fire treatments. Camp Verde, Cornville, Cottonwood, and Flagstaff all have lower 

concentrations of minority residents and lower poverty rates than the study area as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000). Therefore, the potentially disproportionate effect of smoke emissions on 

these communities is not an environmental justice issue. However, the implications of smoke 

emissions on the 4FRI area communities, particularly vulnerable communities, are addressed in 

both the air quality and social analyses.

Numerous tribal communities are in airsheds that may be affected by the 4FRI prescribed fires. 

The potential for disproportionate smoke emissions effects to tribal communities is addressed in 

the environmental consequences analysis. Effects to tribal uses are addressed in the tribal 

relations report.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

No changes to visitor spending or recreational activities are anticipated under alternative A. 

Visitors to the Kaibab and Coconino NFs would continue to contribute approximately 3,000 jobs 

and $110 million in labor income to the study area economy on an average annual basis. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 279

Forest restoration activities would continue to occur on both forests with possible minor 

interruption of recreational opportunities. Over the long term, fewer treated forest acres would 

increase the probability of uncharacteristic wildfire under alternative A. Large wildfires destroy 

trails, campsites, and other forest infrastructure. Major and destructive fires decrease tourism to 

the local area, which would reduce recreation related employment and income in the regional 

economy. 

The forests would continue to provide forage for 110,173 cattle animal unit months (AUMs) and 

13,616 sheep AUMs. These activities support approximately 130 jobs and $2.15 million in labor 

income to the study area economy on an average annual basis. The increased probability of 

uncharacteristic wildfire on untreated land could lead to the destruction of pasture, reduce forage 

availability, and lead to soil erosion. These conditions could reduce available AUMs. Therefore, 

over the long term, untreated land could lead to a reduction in grazing related employment and 

income. 

Under alternative A, both forests would continue to provide forest products and support 

restoration activities. However, the scale of these activities would be substantially smaller than 

activities under this project. The provision of forest products unrelated to the 4FRI treatments 

would be the same under all alternatives and, therefore, are not described in detail in this report. 

Much of the harvesting and processing of forest products would occur in Winslow (Navajo 

County). Employees are expected to come from both Navajo County and surrounding counties. 

The proximity of Winslow to Coconino County suggests that cross-county commuting is 

particularly likely between Navajo and Coconino Counties. 

Historically, the Coconino and Kaibab NFs have annually spent an average of $7,154,801 and 

$4,456,770 on wildfire, respectively. Under alternative A, wildfire suppression costs would, on 

average, increase due to fuel buildup and the expanding wildland-urban interface. The per acre 

administrative burden (cost of time and other resources) of planning, implementation, and 

monitoring forest restoration activities would be highest under alternative A. The 4FRI benefits 

from economies of scale —a single environmental compliance document addresses nearly 

600,000 acres of restoration activities. Furthermore, the large treatment area reduces cost to 

government through increased private sector interest in engaging in harvesting and restoration 

activities on the forests. In contrast, restoration activities under alternative A would occur 

piecemeal, requiring numerous environmental compliance documents and increased 

administrative costs.

The cost to the government to treat an area equivalent to the 4FRI project area would be 

approximately $12 million annually. Discounted at 4 percent over a 10-year period, this is 

equivalent to a cost of more than $100 million. In contrast, the certainty of a sustained supply 

under the 4FRI would encourage private sector restoration, significantly reducing costs to 

government.

Alternative A would not produce measurable social consequences relative to the existing 

condition. Quality of life and social values would not be affected. As with current conditions, 

wildfire could displace recreational activities, compromise forest scenery, and degrade air quality. 

Uncharacteristic wildfire conditions would reduce the quality of life of area residents and forest 

visitors.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

280 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The communities that surround the 4FRI project area, particularly in Coconino and Navajo 

Counties, have large minority populations, a relatively high population, and individuals 

vulnerable to smoke. None of the alternatives eliminates smoke, either from wildfire or 

prescribed fire. Alternative A would treat the fewest acres with prescribed fire. However, it would 

also do the least to restore fire-adapted forests. As a result, smoke from uncharacteristic wildfire 

is most likely under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Forest restoration activities are emphasized in the existing and proposed forest plans in the 

region. Restoration activities would continue to occur in the region regardless of the 4FRI 

decision. Between 2001 and 2010, approximately 132,495 acres have been treated on the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects will treat an additional 

110,940 acres. These actions will occur regardless of the 4FRI selected alternative. Since 2000, 

approximately 80,000 acres (78,734) have been treated on private, State, and other federally 

managed lands in the project area. The effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

treatment activities in the project area would improve forest health relative to existing conditions 

even without implementation of the 4FRI.

Environmental Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Table 86 displays the change in employment and income between current conditions and the 

action alternatives. The changes in employment and income under alternatives B, C, and D reflect 

a temporary reduction in recreation related employment and income due to recreation 

displacement and an increase in employment and income due to the 4FRI harvesting and 

processing activities.

Table 86. Change in employment and labor income from alternative A

Measure Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Change in Employment 1,615 1,615 1,615

Change in Labor Income $75.6 million $75.6 million $75.6 million

Table 87 summarizes the net present value of the 4FRI treatments. Over the 10-year treatment 

period, assuming a 4 percent discount rate, the 4FRI would be expected to produce a $100 million 

benefit. This would be the discounted cost savings to the government of the 4FRI relative to the 

average cost per acre that the government pays for restoration treatment. This figure can be 

viewed as a proxy for the economic value of the 4FRI treatments.

Table 87. Net present value of stewardship contracts

Measure Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Net Present Value of Stewardship 

Contracts

$100 million $100 million $100 million

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide approximately 360,000 CCF of timber and 8,000 dry tons 

of biomass on an average annual basis throughout the 10-year treatment period. Harvesting and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 281

utilization activities related to the 4FRI would support approximately 1,674 jobs and $77.6 

million in labor income in the study area economy on an average annual basis throughout the 10-

year project period. The proposed plant in Winslow, Arizona (Navajo County), would account for 

much of the expected employment. Forest Service project administration would require 35 

employees who are currently on staff.

Approximately 2 percent of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs would be unsuitable for recreational 

uses at any given time due to the 4FRI restoration activities. As section 4.6 of the NVUM surveys 

for the forests demonstrate, when individuals are unable to visit their preferred site, most would 

engage in substitute behavior that would continue to have an effect in the local economy (USDA 

2011a, USDA 2011b). As a result, the 4FRI treatments would not be expected to measurably 

reduce the economic impact of recreation in the study area. However, if recreational activities 

were reduced one-to-one with the reduction in suitable recreation areas (i.e., by 2 percent), 

approximately 2,940 jobs and $108 million in labor income would be supported on an average 

annual basis for the duration of the project. This would be a decrease of approximately 60 jobs 

and $2 million in labor income relative to alternative A. This possible decrease in employment 

and income is reflected in table 86. 

The 4FRI treatments would entail one major pasture burn per year per allotment. Over the 10-

year treatment period, a 10 percent reduction in AUMs is expected. At the end of the 10 years, a 

return to pre-treatment AUM levels would occur. Therefore, during the 10-year treatment period, 

cattle AUMs would decrease to approximately 100,000 and sheep AUMs would decrease to 

approximately 12,250. At current levels, grazing supports approximately 130 jobs and $2.15 

million in labor income in the local economy, annually. The brief duration and advance notice of 

disturbances due to the 4FRI treatments would make it easier for ranchers to adapt to changes. As 

a result, no reductions in grazing related employment would be expected. However, minor 

reductions in rancher income would be possible if ranchers purchased more expensive private 

forage or reduced their stocking levels. However, post-treatment soil and forage quality would be 

expected to increase. Therefore, over the long term, ranchers would benefit from the 4FRI 

activities.

Some individuals may not be able to recreate at their preferred sites during the treatment period. 

If these individuals engage in substitute behavior (e.g., recreating at a different site in the local 

area), there would be no impact to visitor spending. However, there would be social and 

nonmarket consequences to recreation displacement. Individuals may get less fulfillment or 

enjoyment from recreating at an alternate site, which would adversely affect quality of life. Due 

to the short duration and relatively few sites that would be expected to be affected, the quality of 

life implications of recreation displacement would be small. 

Truck traffic volume would increase on Forest Service and nearby roads. Approximately 120,000 

truck trips per year would be expected to result from 4FRI activities. The increased truck volume 

would increase commute times and the incidence of noise and dust in the vicinity. Individuals 

who use and live near those roads would have their quality of life adversely affected. A site 

specific design feature for dust abatement would minimize this effect (see appendix C for specific 

road segments where this would occur).

None of the alternatives would reduce employment and income relative to current conditions, 

therefore, no environmental justice issues related to disproportionate adverse economic effects 

would occur. The mill in Cameron, which is on the Navajo Nation, may benefit from increased 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

282 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

supply from the 4FRI. However, any effect to the mill would likely be small. Changes in 

employment and income associated with the mill would more likely be affected by activities 

unrelated to the 4FRI, such as potential growth in Tuba City. 

Smoke emissions resulting from wildfires and prescribed fires have health and quality of life 

consequences. Smoke would be most likely to affect vulnerable populations, children, the elderly, 

and individuals in poor health. Tribal areas in the Colorado River, Little Colorado River, and 

Verde River airsheds would be likely to experience air quality effects. Elders would be more 

likely to experience acute health effects. Limited communications technology, language barriers, 

and cultural differences may limit the effectiveness of informing residents of upcoming 

prescribed fires.

On both forests, the proposed forest plan amendments address management in MSO habitat, 

management of canopy cover, management of select areas for open reference conditions, and 

propose using vegetation and prescribed fire treatments in the proposed Garland Prairie Research 

Natural Area on the Kaibab NF (alternative C only). Economic activity would not be affected by 

the proposed amendments, therefore, their implementation (or not) would not lead to differences 

in local employment or economic efficiency. Social conditions would not be affected by the 

proposed amendments. Since no social or economic effects would result from implementation of 

the proposed amendments, low income and minority populations would not be disproportionately 

affected.

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative B, wildfire suppression costs would, on average, decrease due to the restoration 

of fire-adapted forests. The decrease in wildfire suppression costs would allow more Forest 

Service expenditures to be directed toward forest health (e.g., fire management for resource 

benefit) and visitor services activities. The per acre administrative burden (cost of time and other 

resources) of planning, implementation, and monitoring forest restoration activities would be 

lower than alternative A. The 4FRI benefits from economies of scale—a single environmental 

compliance document addresses nearly 600,000 acres of restoration activities. Furthermore, the 

large treatment area would reduce cost to the government through increased private sector interest 

in engaging in harvesting and restoration activities on the forests. As shown in table 87, the 4FRI 

stewardship contracts have potential to provide a $100 million net benefit over the 10-year project 

period. 

The environmental justice implications are described in the “Environmental Consequences 

Common to Alternatives B, C, and D” section.

Cumulative Effects

Forest restoration activities are emphasized in the existing and proposed forest plans in the 

region. Restoration activities would continue to occur in the region regardless of the 4FRI 

decision. Between 2001 and 2010, approximately 132,495 acres have been treated on the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects will treat an additional 

110,940 acres. Since 2000, approximately 80,000 acres (78,734) have been treated on private, 

State, and other federally managed lands in the project area. Reasonably foreseeable activities 

will treat 142,869 acres in the project area. These actions will occur regardless of the 4FRI 

selected alternative.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 283

The effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable treatment activities in the project area 

would improve forest health relative to existing conditions even without implementation of the 

4FRI. Under alternative B, due to the expected increase in the size of the timber harvesting and 

processing industry in the region, the local economic impact of current and future restoration 

activities would increase. The estimated employment and income consequences of non-4FRI 

treatment activities, therefore, are likely underestimated in the related environmental compliance 

documents. 

Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the project area would reduce 

the opportunities for substitute behavior when the preferred recreation site is unavailable. As a 

result, individuals may choose to stay home, which would decrease visitor spending and 

consumer surplus to a greater extent than estimated in the direct and indirect effects analysis.

Planned expansions and improvements to recreation opportunities within the project area, 

however, may counterbalance the visitor use consequences of treatment. Increased recreation 

opportunities will increase both the number and appeal of substitute recreation activities in the 

study area.

The extent to which these two forces (vegetation treatment and recreation opportunity 

improvement) would balance each other is unknown. Therefore, the cumulative effects to the 

social and economic impacts from recreation cannot be precisely described. Based on available 

information, the net effect to visitor spending and consumer surplus from ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions is not expected to change.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects are the same as described in alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the same as described in alternative B.

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects

The economic consequences are the same as described in alternative B.

Alternative D would treat the fewest acres with prescribed fire, which would reduce smoke 

emissions related to prescribed fire. However, alternative D would also be less effective than 

alternatives B and C in terms of reducing the risk and hazard of uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Therefore, severe wildfire smoke would be more likely under alternative D (and alternative A). 

Tribal areas in the Colorado River, Little Colorado River, and Verde River airsheds would be 

likely to experience air quality effects. Elders would be more likely to experience acute effects. 

Technological and cultural constraints to effective communication would make smoke effects 

more pronounced, as averting behavior is limited. However, burn plans written for 

implementation of the proposed prescribed fires would include modeling to determine the most 

appropriate conditions under which to burn in order to minimize smoke impacts. Since wildfire is 

unplanned, the potential for severe effects to human health and quality of life are higher during 

wildfire events. Under those circumstances, there would be with little warning, little control over 

the smoke, and a great deal more smoke than if prescribed fire was used.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

284 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described for alternative B.

Recreation

A summary of the recreation report is presented here and the specialist report (Minor 2013) is 

incorporated by reference. The potential impact of the project to recreational opportunities was 

not raised as a concern by the public. Please refer to the specialist report for methodology, data, 

and supporting information. 

This analysis evaluates the following questions in order to respond to/meet forest plan direction: 

• Would project activities affect provision of a variety of recreation opportunities? 

(Measure: acres of opportunities provided.)

• Would smoke from pile burning and prescribed fire affect provision of recreation 

opportunities? (Measure: describe and compare potential effects.)

• Would the proposed restoration activities diverge from reference conditions identified 

for the forest and in the mapped recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) settings? 

(Measure: acres meeting ROS settings.)

• Would proposed road construction or other management activities result in 

inconsistencies in the designated ROS classes in the project area? (Measure: miles of 

roads or acres of treatment in ROS classes impacted by roads in the project area.)

• Would proposed temporary road construction or other management activities result in 

inconsistencies in the designated ROS classes in the project area? (Measure: miles of 

roads or acres of treatment in ROS classes impacted by roads in the project area.)

Affected Environment

The Coconino and Kaibab NFs provide diverse outdoor recreation opportunities, connecting 

people with nature in a variety of settings. See the specialist report for maps that display general 

locations of recreation settings within the project area. The 4FRI project area is included in the 

Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) region that includes Coconino, Navajo, 

Apache, and Yavapai Counties. In comparison with Arizona State figures, more residents in the 

NACOG region participate in outdoor recreation activities more times throughout the year than in 

other regions of Arizona. The entire list of activities people participate in is available on the FS 

Natural Resource Manager Web site (http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/). 

According to national visitor use monitoring (NVUM), most visitors to the Coconino NF use dayuse developed sites (such as picnic areas, observation points, and trailheads) and undeveloped 

areas (the general forest area with no developed facilities). On the Kaibab NF, the majority of 

visitors use overnight developed sites (campgrounds) and day-use developed sites. In all of these 

sites, visitors may engage in a number of different recreation activities (they are not limited to 

camping when staying at a campground). See the socioeconomic report for additional information 

on population growth, demographics, and tourism related economics that affects recreation use. 

There are approximately 220 miles of dispersed camping corridors along the designated road 

system on the Coconino NF portion of the project where restoration activities would take place. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 285

This represents about 37 percent of designated camping corridors on the Coconino NF. About 4.2 

percent of visitors to the Coconino report that they dispersed camp in undeveloped areas (USDA 

2012). The Kaibab NF provides short road segments for recreation access including dispersed 

camping. Less than half of the short road segments would be affected by restoration activities. 

Approximately 9.2 percent of recreationists indicated that they dispersed camp in undeveloped 

areas (USDA 2012c).

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is a classification system that describes different 

outdoor recreation settings across the forests using seven standard classes that range from 

primitive, undeveloped settings to urban, highly developed settings. Attributes typically 

considered in describing the settings are size, scenic quality, type and degree of access, 

remoteness, level of development, social encounters, and the amount of onsite management. Over 

60 percent of the project is in the roaded natural ROS class, approximately 20 percent is in 

semiprimitive motorized, and there is less than 10 percent in each of the remaining classes. The 

4FRI project does not include restoration activities in developed recreation sites, special areas, or 

designated wilderness. ROS classes and miles of road by ROS class are displayed in tabular and 

map form in the specialist report. 

Throughout much of the project area, numerous resource management activities have occurred 

including vegetation management, road maintenance, developed recreation site construction, trail 

construction and maintenance, prescribed fires, hazard tree removal, utility corridor clearing, and 

others. In addition, there have been numerous wildfires in the area. Not all projects have met or 

currently meet the characterizations and mapped ROS classes at this time.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences are organized to sequentially follow the analysis questions 

presented earlier. The environmental consequences are based on the application of design criteria 

and mitigation developed to eliminate or reduce adverse effects of the proposed actions on 

sensitive resources. See the “Recreation” section of appendix C in the DEIS. 

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no immediate direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on existing recreational 

settings or facilities. Since no direct management actions would occur, the existing recreational 

settings would not change. Although stand densities would remain unnaturally high in much of 

the project area, some visitors are not aware of the unnatural condition of the forest, and their 

experience and perception of forest conditions would continue to be largely positive. 

In the short term, there would be no change in recreation opportunities. In the long term, up to 

589,923 acres could be affected in the event of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire or insect or 

disease outbreak. There would be no effects to recreation opportunities from pile burning or 

prescribed fires.

The ROS settings are currently natural appearing, but forest conditions make the settings 

vulnerable to wildfire and insect or disease outbreaks. There would be no change from existing 

conditions to ROS.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

286 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area is the ponderosa pine forest on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. The 

cumulative effects period is 20 to 30 years. Past human activities and natural disturbance 

processes have influenced the current condition of the project area. Management activities and 

natural processes have affected, or continue to affect, vegetation structure, spatial arrangement 

and pattern, composition and diversity, natural processes (such as fire), and movement toward

increased forest resiliency and function. The specialist report provides an overall assessment of 

positive and negative cumulative effects of past, present, and future projects on recreation. 

Cumulatively, the no action alternative (when considered with past, present, and future projects) 

would not immediately change recreation opportunities and the associated recreation settings on 

the forests. Increased demand for ponderosa pine forest settings is expected. This alternative is 

expected to result in declining forest health, unhealthy stands (that have resulted from past 

wildfires and past timber sales), and a less sustainable forest. There would be a decline in the 

quality and availability of satisfactory recreation settings as well as the slow decline in provision 

of distinct ROS classes.

The no action alternative would result in the forest being more susceptible to large intensity 

wildfire or beetle attack. This would result in a decrease in recreation opportunities while at the 

same time, the desire for recreation use is increasing as a result of population growth and the 

public is increasingly dependent on national forests for recreation and leisure activities. Thus, this 

alternative would result in a cumulative decrease in the ability of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs 

to meet recreation demands over the long term. 

Past vegetation management activities have resulted in an even-aged forest structure that is 

generally undesirable for recreation settings. It has contributed to the scarcity of large, mature 

trees and a lack of open structure—two setting characteristics (Ryan 2005) that have been 

identified as desirable to forest users. Past fire suppression activities have contributed to 

overstocked forest conditions, increased fuels, and decreased understory vegetation health. The 

current and planned vegetation management treatments and burning projects on both forests—as 

well as opportunities for managed wildfire—result in cumulative improvements in forest health 

and sustainability in the ponderosa pine, but are at such a small scale that benefits to the 

recreation settings in the ponderosa pine forest on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs are small and 

localized. In the event of a large, high-intensity wildfire, or large scale insect infestation resulting 

from existing conditions, the desired recreation settings and ROS class characteristics forest users 

seek would be so altered that the cumulative effects would result in a lack of desired recreation 

settings and long-term changes in ROS classes.

Motorized travel management implementation, in combination with the no action alternative, is 

expected to have mostly positive effects on recreation settings due to prohibition of cross-country 

motorized travel. The quality of many recreation settings in ROS classes were declining due to 

increased motorized use and increasing occurrences of cross-country travel. Present and future 

activities may result in degradation along heavily used camping corridors, but these would be 

small and localized.

Desired recreation setting characteristics such as large, mature trees, healthy understory, and 

diversity of tree age classes, sizes, and species are also at high risk from the effects of climate 

change. While drought cycles are common in the Southwest, increasing temperatures and 

decreases in precipitation in combination with overstocked forest conditions and high fuel loads 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 287

are predicted to result in an increase in high-intensity wildfires (Westerling et al. 2006, Marlon et 

al. 2012, University of Arizona 2012). Unmanaged forests have shown increases in tree stress and 

mortality as a result of global warming, and old, mature trees are especially vulnerable (Ritchie 

2008, Van Mantgem et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2010). Increased tree mortality and loss of large, 

mature trees would result in a cumulative decrease in recreation settings.

Alternatives B, C, and D Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B - Recreation Opportunities

There would be short term and temporary decreases in the provision of recreation opportunities 

on parts of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Some forest users would be dissatisfied with their lack 

of access to portions of the project area during management activities such as thinning projects 

and prescribed fires. Areas may be closed to the public due to hazardous conditions which would 

result in forest user displacement and user dissatisfaction.

There could also be an increase in crowding in nearby open forest areas. Since this project would 

affect 40,000 acres at one time, or 2 percent of the south Kaibab and Coconino NFs, it is unlikely 

that crowding ratings would increase more than 25 percent in areas that have already been 

identified as having crowded conditions. 

Direct effects of pile burning, prescribed fires, and fire line preparation are the potential for shortterm displacement of recreationists during implementation (campers may need to be moved out, 

trail users may not be able to use a trail during firing operations), or visitor dissatisfaction (seeing 

slash piles or pile burning, smoky conditions from pile or prescribed fires while people are 

visiting the area); however, these effects are expected to be of short duration and intensity (fire 

line preparation would likely last less than a year and smoky conditions in any one particular area 

are likely to last a week or less).

Indirect effects would include recreation user displacement (potentially including trail users, 

hunters, anglers, winter users, firewood gatherers), increased use of special areas and designated 

wilderness, and potential crowding in areas not receiving forest management treatments. 

Restoration activities would help to assure long-term provision of recreation opportunities. 

Mitigations that include provision of information about treatment and burning locations would 

help to inform visitors of places to avoid or other locations that are not receiving active 

treatments. Mitigations to provide information about the location of restoration activities as well 

as places where there are no activities planned may help reduce visitor frustration about finding a 

camping location and assist campers in making choices about where they will engage in camping 

activities (see the “Recreation” section in appendix C of the DEIS). 

Recreation Settings

Direct and indirect effects to recreation settings from mechanical treatments would result in short 

term (immediate to 5 years), temporary changes in up to 72 percent of ROS settings quality 

(urban to roaded natural) in the project area. The short-term effects would persist one or more 

seasons until activity slash is treated and the treated area recovers to an “unaltered” or 

“undisturbed” natural appearance.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

288 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Effects of mechanical treatments are expected to take longer (immediate to 10 years) to recover in 

the two semiprimitive ROS settings since these would have less evidence of treatment or 

development to begin with and would require more time to naturalize. Twenty-eight percent of 

the project area is in the two semiprimitive ROS settings in the project area. Mitigation measures 

have been designed to ensure that direct effects of project activities are short term, and important 

recreation values are protected in the long term. ROS classes are expected to be changed 1 to 5 

years after treatment, but following completion of vegetation treatments should display many of 

the characteristics described for each setting.

As required in the Kaibab NF forest plan, temporary changes in ROS classes are documented in 

the recreation report and the timeline for meeting the mapped ROS classes is 15 years from the 

beginning of project implementation (5 years following the last projected treatment). There would 

be one exception to this for aspen treatments. Since these activities require fencing or creation of 

barriers until trees can withstand ungulate grazing, it is anticipated aspen stands would not meet 

desired ROS classes until at least 20 years following project implementation.

There would be short term and temporary changes in ROS classes as well as decreases in the 

scenic quality of trailside recreation settings due to restoration activities (see report for examples). 

Following completion of treatments, trailside settings are expected to naturalize quickly (within 1 

to 3 years) and the scenic quality of the settings would be improved. 

There would be short-term disturbance and temporary changes in ROS classes and roadside 

recreation settings during road reconstruction. Recreation visitors may be inconvenienced and 

have to wait during some activities, or roads may be temporarily closed causing displacement. 

Long-term effects would be improved water quality at stream crossings, and safer and better 

maintained roads for forest user enjoyment (see the soils and water quality and riparian report). 

Decommissioning of existing and unauthorized roads would improve recreation settings over 

time and would improve ROS classes. Temporary road construction would result in short-term 

disturbance and temporary changes in ROS classes. New linear features would be added to 

recreation settings reducing the scenic quality for 3 to 10 years. There may be some increase in 

illegal motorized vehicle use of these roads until they are decommissioned. Once these roads 

have been decommissioned, they are usually not apparent to the casual user. Mitigation measures 

would be used to close off entrance and exit locations of these roads, as well as use of BMPs (see 

appendix C of the DEIS). Opening closed roads would have similar effects as reopening 

temporary roads; however, decommissioning would result in the roads revegetating and becoming 

natural appearing over time. Since these roads would not be reopened, in the long term the 

decommissioned roads would meet and improve ROS classes.

Spring improvements would improve and meet ROS classes. Channel restoration would improve 

recreation settings over time. There would be short to moderate term changes in ROS settings 

where aspen are treated. Ephemeral channel restoration fencing and aspen restoration fencing and 

jackstrawing would cause temporary changes in the ROS class setting characteristics since the 

natural appearing environment would be somewhat altered. When fencing is removed or 

jackstrawed trees burn or begin to break up and decompose, treatment areas would meet ROS 

classes. This alternative would provide for restoration treatments along both utility corridors and 

road rights-of-way. Mitigation measures that include feathering abrupt edges of corridors and 

rights-of-way should result in ROS class compliance. Based on information compiled for this 

project (Noble 2013), the mechanical treatments would improve all understory characteristics. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 289

Thinning and prescribed fire would increase most understory characteristics with the possible 

exceptions of shrubs and Gambel oak. A healthier, more varied understory would result in

improved recreation settings on at least 388,489 acres where thinning and prescribed fire would 

occur, as well as some improvement on 199,435 acres of prescribed fire only.

This alternative provides for the long-term protection of recreational settings and facilities on 

388,489 acres where mechanical thinning and burning would occur by improving stand 

conditions and reducing fuel loading, and would lower the risk of high-intensity fire somewhat on 

199,435 acres where prescribed fire would occur. Maintaining healthy, green forests and reducing 

the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires in the project area would have a positive effect on 

protecting and maintaining high quality recreation settings into the future.

Forest Plan Amendments

Coconino NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement the proposed action: 

• Amendment 1 would amend the Coconino forest plan to comply with the new MSO 

recovery plan’s desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and monitoring. While 

constructed features such as trails or recreation sites are generally placed outside of 

PACs, older trail alignments or recreation sites may precede delineation of these areas, 

and may be located within or adjacent to PACs. For recreation, this would result in 

potential reductions in the risk of wildfire in MSO PACs compared to compliance with 

the existing forest plan language and direction. It would also open up these PACs, 

somewhat creating the potential for views beyond the immediate foreground. This would 

have a slight positive effect on recreation settings and scenic quality associated with the 

settings.

• Amendment 2 would result in making progress toward the desired forest structure and 

move about 29,000 acres toward historic reference conditions. It would help to meet the 

desired conditions of restoring natural processes and forest health and providing for high 

scenic and recreational values. It would also meet Coconino forest plan goals and 

objectives for recreation including: “Manage the recreation resource to increase 

opportunities for a wide variety of developed and dispersed experiences” and “there is a 

range of recreational setting opportunities for people to enjoy the area’s many scenic and 

aesthetic qualities. The diversity and quality of recreation opportunities, settings, and 

experiences are within acceptable limits of change to ecosystem stability and condition.” 

It would make more progress toward restoration than implementing the existing forest 

plan direction. There would be improvement in recreation settings and scenic quality 

associated with the settings.

• Amendment 3 would allow for managing to achieve a “no adverse effect” 

determination for significant, or potentially significant, inventoried heritage sites. This 

amendment would not affect recreation resources associated with this project.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

290 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Kaibab NF 

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement the proposed action: 

• Amendment 1 would result in making progress toward desired forest structure and 

move about 27,000 acres toward historic reference conditions. It would help to meet the 

desired conditions of restoring natural processes and forest health and providing for high 

scenic and recreational values. It would also meet Kaibab forest plan goals and 

standards for recreation: “Manage a wide spectrum of desired settings that provide 

opportunities for the public to engage in a variety of developed and dispersed recreation 

activities, in concert with other resource management and protection needs” and “Where 

existing conditions do not meet mapped ROS or SIOs, design and implement project to 

move the area toward desired conditions.” 

• Amendment 2 would not affect recreation resources associated with this project.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for alternative B is the ponderosa pine forests on the Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs, and the cumulative effects period is 20 to 30 years.

Past human activities and natural disturbance processes have influenced the current condition of 

the project area. Management activities and natural processes have affected, and continue to 

affect, vegetation structure, spatial arrangement and pattern, composition and diversity, natural 

processes (such as fire), and movement toward increased forest resiliency and function. The 

specialist report provides an overall assessment of positive and negative cumulative effects of 

past, present, and future projects on recreation.

The cumulative effects of alternative B and past, present, and future projects would have short 

term and local negative cumulative effects on the provision of recreation opportunities and the 

associated recreation settings on the forests. Forest users seeking ponderosa pine recreation 

settings may be displaced or restricted, and the quality of recreation sites may temporarily 

decrease during management activities for this project and other current or future projects.

Alternative B would restore the ponderosa pine forest health and sustainability to over 500,000 

acres; this, combined with other restoration activities, would decrease the risk of high-intensity

wildfire or large insect outbreaks. Increasing numbers of recreation users and demand for 

ponderosa pine recreation settings will continue to strain the Agency’s capacity and in some areas 

of concentrated use, the resource capacity. With increasing demand for ponderosa pine forest 

settings, the large-scale improvements to forest health and sustainability of this project and 

similar vegetation and burning projects such as Upper Beaver Creek Forest Restoration, Hart 

Prairie Forest Restoration, Marshall Forest Restoration, Rim Lakes Forest Restoration, and others 

are expected to result in cumulative retention or improvement in the quality of recreation settings 

and an increase in the ability of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs to meet recreation demands over 

the long term.

Past vegetation management activities have resulted in an even-aged forest structure that is 

generally undesirable for recreation settings. It has contributed to the scarcity of large, mature 

trees, and a lack of open structure—two setting characteristics (Ryan 2005) that have been 

identified as desirable to forest users. Past fire suppression activities have contributed to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 291

overstocked forest conditions, increased quantities of fuels, and decreased understory vegetation. 

The current and planned vegetation management treatments and burning projects on both forests, 

as well as opportunities for managed wildfire, cumulatively result in improvements in forest 

health and sustainability in the ponderosa pine that are large and widespread. In the event of a 

wildfire or insect infestation, the restored forest would likely experience more typical lowintensity fire and small scale insect infestation. The cumulative effects to desired recreation 

settings and ROS class characteristics forest users seek would be maintained and improved.

Utility corridor clearing in combination with alternative B would result in short term and 

localized negative cumulative effects on both forests.

Motorized travel management implementation in combination with alternative B is expected to 

have mostly positive effects on recreation settings due to prohibition of cross-country motorized 

travel and decommissioning of user-created routes and some existing forest roads. The quality of 

many recreation settings in ROS classes were declining due to increased, unconfined motorized 

use and increasing occurrences of cross-country travel. Present and future activities may result in 

additional degradation along camping corridors, but these would be short term and localized. 

There would be positive cumulative effects and an overall improvement in ROS classes as a 

result of these activities. In some areas, motorized restrictions resulting from travel management 

implementation may combine with temporary access restrictions that would be necessary under

this alternative to make portions of the forests unavailable for motorized access.

Road and trail construction projects in combination with alternative B would result in negative 

effects to small and localized recreation settings across both forests. Little new road construction 

is proposed now or in the future. Motorized trails projects (proposed in other projects) include 

new construction, road to trail conversion, and route decommissioning in appropriate ROS 

classes. This would have positive cumulative effects in more primitive ROS classes when 

decommissioned routes naturalize, and expected characteristics are reestablished.

Desired recreation setting characteristics such as large, mature trees, healthy understory, and 

diversity of tree age classes, sizes, and species are also at high risk from the effects of climate 

change. While drought cycles are common in the Southwest, increasing temperatures and 

decreases in precipitation in combination with overstocked forest conditions and high fuel loads 

are predicted to result in an increase in high-intensity wildfires (Westerling et al. 2006, Marlon et 

al. 2012, University of Arizona 2012). Unmanaged forests have shown increases in tree stress and 

mortality as a result of global warming, and old, mature trees are especially vulnerable (Ritchie 

2008, Van Mantgem et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2010). Alternative B and other restoration projects 

would cumulatively result in improved forest structure, composition, and diversity and more 

resilient forest conditions with decreased tree stress and potential for decreased mortality.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Settings

The effects described in alternative B would be the same for alternative C with the exception of 

the number of acres restored. Approximately 10 percent more acres would receive restoration 

treatments and this would further reduce the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires in the project 

area. This would have a slightly more positive effect on protecting and maintaining high quality 

recreation settings over time. Alternative C would result in 10 percent more temporary changes in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

292 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

ROS classes during project implementation. Assuming a linear relationship, up to 10 percent 

more forest users would be affected by the additional treatments. 

Alternative C would construct up to 15 weirs and 20 weather stations (disturbing approximately 3 

acres) as part of watershed improvements and metrics. Effects to recreation settings would be to 

increase the visibility of human disturbances on 3 acres within the project area. Mitigation 

measures are included in order to assure that constructed features use natural or natural appearing 

materials that reduce the visibility and contrast as much as possible (see appendix C of the DEIS).

Recreation Opportunities

There would be some reduction of recreation opportunities during active forest thinning and 

prescribed burning. It is estimated that there would be a 10 percent increase or about 66,000 acres 

could be affected at one time. Areas may be closed to the public due to hazardous conditions 

which would result in forest user displacement and user dissatisfaction. There could also be an 

increase in crowding in nearby open forest areas. The effects from pile burning (smoke) are the 

same as described in alternative B.

This alternative would provide for the long-term protection of recreational settings and facilities 

on 434,001 acres where mechanical thinning and burning would occur by improving stand 

conditions and reducing fuel loading, and would lower the risk of high-intensity fire somewhat on 

159, 211 acres where prescribed fire only would occur. Maintaining healthy, green forests and 

reducing the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires in the project area would have a positive 

effect on protecting and maintaining high quality recreation settings into the future.

See alternative B for roads and other management activities. Weir construction (see alternative C 

description) would result in short-term decreases in ROS classes. Mitigation measures (see 

appendix C of the DEIS) would be used so that natural or natural appearing materials are used in 

weir construction, and the landscape architect would be involved in design of the fixtures so that 

they would meet the ROS class.

Forest Plan Amendments

Coconino NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative C: 

• Amendment 1: Increase the size of trees that could be removed in 18 MSO PACs and 

could allow use of low-intensity prescribed fire within 56 PAC core areas. Old, large 

diameter trees are often an important part of the scenic quality of recreation settings. 

While constructed features such as trails or recreation sites are generally placed outside 

of PACs, older trail alignments or recreation sites may precede delineation of these areas

and may be located within or adjacent to PAC’s. For recreation, this would result in 

more potential reductions in the risk of wildfire in MSO PACs compared to compliance 

with existing forest plan language and direction and more than would be implemented in 

action alternatives B or D. It would open up these PACs more, creating the potential for 

views beyond the immediate foreground. This would have a somewhat greater positive 

effect on recreation settings and scenic quality associated with the settings than action 

alternatives B or D.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 293

• Amendment 2: The effects to recreation would be the same as with alternative B.

• Amendment 3: There would be no effects to recreation resources from implementation 

of this amendment.

Kaibab NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement alternative C: 

• Amendment 1: The effects of this alternative would be the same as for alternative B.

• Amendment 2: The effects of mechanically treating and prescribed burning Garland 

Prairie RNA would be similar to those described earlier in this chapter for savanna 

treatments. There would be short-term (1 to 5 years) disturbances that would temporarily 

lower the scenic quality of RNA settings. In the long term, these treatments would result 

in improved plant vigor and species diversity (Noble 2013) that would be positive for 

scenic drivers, hikers, equestrians, and others.

• Amendment 3 would have no effects on recreation resources. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of alternative C are the same as alternative B. The other projects such as 

construction of weirs and weather stations would result in no or very small, localized cumulative 

effects.

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The short term and temporary decreases in the provision of recreation opportunities on the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs and dissatisfaction would be the same as described in alternative B.

This alternative has the most risk of damage due to human-caused fire starts since only about a 

quarter of the area would receive prescribed fire treatments. Studies have shown that hikers 

demand decreased slightly in areas recovering from crown fire and increased in areas recovering 

from prescribed fire (Hesseln et al. 2004). 

The completion of restoration activities would provide some protection of 388,489 acres across 

both national forests from mechanical thinning, but less than alternatives B or C because 

prescribed burning would occur on only 178,790 acres or 30 percent of the project area. The 

proposed activities would help to assure provision of recreation opportunities, but these would be 

limited since prescribed fire would not be used to help maintain forest health and resilience.

Direct effects of vegetation management and mitigation measures are the same as for alternatives 

B and C. See the “Scenery” section for impacts to scenic quality in terms of recreation settings.

Direct effects of pile burning, prescribed fire, and fire line preparation have the least potential for 

short-term displacement of recreationists during implementation since much less area would be 

treated through these methods. This alternative would cause the fewest days of smoky conditions 

due to pile burning or prescribed fire. Fire line preparation would occur on about one-quarter of 

the area, the least of the action alternatives. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

294 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The immediate effects of pile burning include small (less than 1/10 of an acre) bare, blackened 

areas on 99 acres that may persist in this condition until vegetation begins to move in or sprout 

usually within 1 to 3 years following burning. Prescribed fire would occur on about one-third of 

the project area. The immediate effects following prescribed burning are the same as described in 

alternatives B and C.

The effects of roads on recreation resources would be the same as alternatives B and C. 

There are approximately 357 miles of dispersed camping corridors along the designated road 

system on the Coconino NF portion of the project where restoration activities would take place. 

This represents about 61percent of designated camping corridors on the Coconino NF. About 4.2 

percent of visitors to the Coconino report that they dispersed camp in undeveloped areas. The 

direct effects of alternative D would be similar or slightly greater than alternative B or C since 

processing slash—whether by chipping/shredding/mastication and/or hauling—would take longer 

to complete than cutting and burning, and the machinery used to process slash would result in 

longer reduction of natural quiet. Winters (2002) found greater support through average approval 

ratings was found for signs at recreation sites, seasonal closures, restrictions on use, and 

controlled burns; less support was indicated for mechanical interventions. 

Initial ground recovery may be faster with slash removal and less prescribed fire, but the potential 

for crown fire or high intensity ground fire is reduced on only a third of the treatment acres. There 

would still be some camper displacement along some of the designated camping corridors during 

implementation when there are temporary closures.

Indirect effects of mechanical treatments on both forests in terms of crowding in designated 

camping corridors would be similar as described in alternatives B and C with mechanical 

treatment-only areas having slash treated with mechanical methods or removal. However, initial 

recovery would be faster than those areas receiving prescribed fire, but the risk of fire starts 

would be greater with this alternative. 

There may be longer hiking and motorized user temporary closures with alternative D since slash 

would be mechanically treated: chipped/shredded/masticated or transported away from the site. 

There would be shorter temporary closures associated with prescribed fire activities since only a 

third of the treatment area would be burned. 

There would be short-term and temporary changes in ROS classes as well as decreases in the 

scenic quality of trailside recreation settings due to restoration activities. These could include 

visible skid trails and log landings on nearby roads, increased noise from mechanical thinning, 

and slash treatment or removal. There would be 99 acres of blackened areas where slash piles 

would be burned. Following completion of treatments, trailside settings are expected to naturalize 

quickly (within 1 to 3 years) and the scenic quality of the settings would be improved. Understory 

vegetation would respond, but not as much as alternative B or C. The effects to hunters, anglers, 

and firewood gathering are the same as described in alternatives B and C.

Direct and indirect effects to recreation settings of mechanical treatments would be a short term, 

temporary change in ROS setting quality until the effects of logging and slash treatment activities 

fade and become vegetated and the treated area recovers to an “unaltered” or “undisturbed” 

natural appearance. Mitigation measures would ensure that direct effects of project activities are 

short term, and important recreation values are protected in the long term. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 295

This alternative does less than alternative B or C to provide for the long-term protection of 

recreational settings and facilities on the project area since total prescribed fire would be reduced 

to 178,790 acres. Stand conditions would be improved from thinning, but fuels loading would be 

reduced on only about a third of the project area. The risk of high-intensity fire would be the 

greatest of all action alternatives, but less than the no action alternative. This alternative has the 

least positive effect in terms of moving toward desired conditions and protecting and maintaining 

high quality recreation settings into the future.

Slash resulting from mechanical treatments would be disposed of through various methods 

including chipping, shredding, mastication, and removal of biomass offsite. These methods would 

best protect the scenic quality and natural appearing quality of ROS classes and recreation 

settings of all alternatives. However, these slash treatment methods also contribute to already high 

fuels loadings and would increase the risk of high-intensity wildfire occurring (see fire ecology 

report). 

The effects to ROS classes from roads, springs, channels, aspen, utility corridors, and road rightsof-way treatments are the same as described in alternatives B and C.

The understory is expected to be improved but not as much as alternatives B and C. About onequarter of the area proposed for restoration would have well improved recreation settings, the 

remainder would have somewhat improved recreation settings.

Alternative D would result in some reduction of recreation opportunities during active forest 

thinning and prescribed burning, and potentially longer slash treatment duration than alternative

B or C. It is estimated that up to one-tenth of the project area, or about 40,000 acres, could be 

affected at one time. Areas may be closed to the public due to hazardous conditions which would 

result in forest user displacement and user dissatisfaction. There could also be an increase in 

crowding in nearby open forest areas. 

Smoke from pile burning would be minimal with alternative D. Only 99 acres would be thinned, 

hand piled, and burned. 

Smoke from prescribed fire would occur on about a third of the acreage as alternative B or C. 

Short-term effects are the same as described in alternatives B and C. This alternative provides for 

the long-term protection of recreational settings and facilities on 388,489 acres where mechanical 

thinning would occur, improving stand conditions, and would reduce the fuel loads on 178,790 

acres where prescribed burning would occur. The risk of high-intensity wildfire would be

lessened in the short term, but lack of prescribed fire and repeat burning would result in 

increasing risk of wildfire over time.

The quality of scenery viewing would be reduced in the short term (1 to 3 years) during project 

implementation due to logging operations, but because slash would be treated or removed rather 

than being piled or burned, these effects would be shortened and reduced. Prescribed fires would 

occur on about 178,753 acre with short-term effects. The areas would begin to recover and 

naturalize. Mitigation measures to provide information about scheduled burns would be available 

so that recreation visitors could make informed decisions about choosing the places they recreate. 

The effects of spring improvements, ephemeral channel improvements, and fencing would be the 

same as with alternatives B and C. Effects of utility corridor and road rights-of-way would also 

be the same.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

296 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Forest Plan Amendments

Coconino NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative D: 

• Amendment 1: The effects of this forest plan amendment would be the same as with 

alternative B.

• Amendment 2: The effects to recreation from this plan amendment would be the same 

as alternatives B and C.

• Amendment 3 would have no effect on recreation resources. 

Kaibab NF 

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B of the DEIS) would be required on 

the Kaibab NF to implement the proposed action: 

• Amendment 1: The effects of this amendment would be similar to alternatives B and C.

• Amendment 2 would have not effects on recreation. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary and timeframe is the same as described in alternative B. 

Alternative D would result in the forest being more susceptible to wildfire. The effects of this 

alternative and other projects would result in a declining quality of recreation opportunities while 

at the same time, the desire for recreation use is increasing as a result of population growth and 

the public is increasingly dependent on national forests for recreation and leisure activities. Thus, 

this alternative would result in a cumulative decrease in the ability of the Coconino and Kaibab 

NFs to meet recreation demands over the long term, although not as much as the no action 

alternative.

The impact of past vegetation management activities and fire suppression activities are the same 

as described in alternative B. The current and planned vegetation management treatments and 

burning projects on both forests, as well as opportunities for managed wildfire result in 

cumulative improvements in forest health and sustainability in the ponderosa pine, but these are 

limited in scope and would have less of a cumulative effect in ponderosa pine forest types on the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs since the quantity of prescribed burning under this alternative would 

be greatly reduced. This would result in more localized benefits to the recreation settings in the 

ponderosa pine forest on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs and less of a cumulative benefit toward 

maintaining resilient ponderosa pine forest types to provide recreational opportunities. 

In the event of a wildfire, there would be a greater chance of high intensity ground fire as a result 

of high fuels loadings. Since wildfire risks are only reduced a third as much in alternative D, the 

desired recreation settings and ROS class characteristics forest users seek would be altered, and 

the cumulative effects would result in a lack of desired recreation settings and long-term changes 

in ROS classes.

This alternative would likely require additional mechanical means to chip or haul activity slash 

resulting from thinning activities. This would likely result in temporary restrictions to parts of the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 297

forest that may combine with motor vehicle restrictions included with travel management 

implementation to restrict vehicle access to larger parts of the forest, thus temporarily decreasing 

recreation opportunities, but not necessarily recreation quality. These cumulative impacts on 

recreational opportunities are expected to be localized to where the treatment work is taking place 

and would be limited to weeks or months in time. 

Desired recreation setting characteristics such as large, mature trees, healthy understory, and 

diversity of tree age classes, sizes, and species are also at high risk from the effects of climate 

change. Alternative D and other vegetation management projects would cumulatively result in 

improved forest structure, but less improvement in forest composition and diversity. The forest 

resilience would be improved in the short term, but risk of wildfire would still be high and with it, 

the potential for large-scale fires that could kill many trees, including vulnerable old, mature 

trees.

Lands and Minerals

A summary of the lands and minerals report is presented here. The specialist report (Rowe 2012) 

is incorporated by reference. See the report for the complete methodology and analysis process.

No key issue (large trees, emissions from prescribed fire, or post-treatment landscape openness) 

addressed in the DEIS has any effect on lands special uses and/or minerals and, therefore, they do 

not serve as indicators for analyzing the effects of the project on these resources. However, the 

project would have an indirect effect in the form of reduced fire risk. Therefore, the indicator 

used for this analysis is the number of acres with reduced fire risk. 

Lands Special Uses 

Lands special use authorizations include permits, term permits, leases, and easements that 

authorize occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. Authorized activities include uses 

such as utility corridors, roadways, communications sites, and research projects, as well as many 

other uses. The terms of these authorizations vary based upon the type of use. 

As of March 2012, there were 496 active lands special use permits in the project area. 

Additionally, there are approximately 30 to 40 temporary permits issued each year for 

commercial filming, photography, and other short-term uses. Research permits are also regularly 

issued within the project area; while many are short term in nature, there are also long term 

research permits.

Most lands special use permits allow vegetation clearing around the facilities they authorize to 

provide for access and/or fuel reduction. Within the project area, the bulk of this vegetation 

treatment occurs in association with power, gas, and other utility corridors. Of the 496 permits in 

the project area, 37 fall into this category. They represent approximately 32,345 acres of 

vegetation that are being managed regularly. Not all of these acres lie within the project area, 

however, as permit acreages are recorded for the entire authorization and generally not broken 

down by township and range. 

Recent years show an increasing demand for lands special uses. As development in communities 

in and around the forests increase, their need to utilize public lands in support of their 

infrastructure will also increase. Proposals for powerlines, rights-of-way, communications sites, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

298 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

water transmission lines, and roadways have increased steadily and will continue to do so in 

future years. Increased interest in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, has also 

contributed to the increased demand. 

Minerals

Locatable minerals production on the Coconino NF includes manganese, gypsum, flagstone, and 

pumice. Saleable minerals production includes cinders, crushed aggregate, fill rock and dirt, and 

landscape rock. There are no oil or gas leases. Potential geothermal resources are associated with 

the San Francisco Volcanic Field.

Presently, no known coal, oil, or gas reserves are located on the Kaibab NF. The primary 

economic mineral resource consists of limited locatable mineral deposits. Many are small and, in 

today’s economic climate, not commercially viable. There are, however, uranium deposits that are 

of higher grade than approximately 85 percent of the world’s known uranium deposits 

(International Atomic Energy Agency 2009; World Nuclear Association 2009; as cited in the 

special uses-minerals-lands specialist report for the Kaibab forest plan revision, 2011). Salable 

minerals consist of sand and gravel deposits, building materials, and cinders. The area of the 

Tusayan district that was designated as part of the Grand Canyon Game Preserve is withdrawn 

from mineral entry.

The “Coconino-Kaibab Rock Pit Environmental Analysis,” currently underway, would allow the 

use and development of 19 rock pits on the Coconino NF and 20 on the Kaibab NF. Many of 

these pits would be new sources. Most of the rock would be used by the forests, but some may be 

made available for sale to counties, cities, and other agencies.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no restoration activities would occur. Stand and vegetation structures 

would not be improved, which would make the landscape in the project area less resilient to 

disturbance and would provide increased fuels for wildland fires. Increased fire danger, and the 

potential for increased intensity of wildland fires, would impact lands special uses by threatening 

the structures they authorize in both the short term (10 years) and long term (20 years and more). 

Any structures associated with active minerals sites would also be similarly threatened. Longterm effects could be the destruction of these facilities by fire, and possibly the closure of firedamaged areas for rehabilitation. There may be short term, temporary effects in the form of 

restricted access to sites during fire suppression activities or post-fire rehabilitation. See the fire 

ecology report for detailed information on existing and foreseeable fire risk.

Effects of All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

All action alternatives would improve forest health by providing for a variety of restoration 

activities. While they vary in specific approaches, the overall effect on lands special uses and 

minerals would be the same. Increased forest health would lower the risk wildland fires and lower 

the potential for fires of high intensity. This would reduce the threat to the structures authorized 

for lands special uses and mineral projects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 299

Of the action alternatives, alternative C treats the most acres; therefore, it provides the greatest 

improvement to forest health and reduced risk of fire.

All action alternatives would require construction of 524 miles of temporary roads and the 

reconstruction of 10 miles of existing roads, which would result in increased demand for mineral 

materials for road surfacing. This could result in the need for new source pits, if existing pits 

proved insufficient. It could also result in the need for new source pits in the future, if existing 

pits are depleted by this project.

There could be short term, temporary impacts to land special uses and mineral projects as sitespecific restoration activities were implemented. For example, access to sites may be temporarily 

restricted while thinning or burning was occurring. The duration of these impacts would be only 

as long as the site-specific activities were occurring, for example, the amount of time that 

thinning was occurring in the vicinity of a particular permit area or mineral site. Prior to any sitespecific implementation, the Forest Service would work with affected permit or claim holders to 

determine site-specific concerns, such as timing restoration activities to avoid periods of high use 

or access needs by the permit holders. Such mitigation would minimize potential adverse effects 

to these resources. Under all alternatives, there is no foreseeable irretrievable or irreversible 

commitment of resources.

Effects of Forest Plan Amendments Under Each Action Alternative

Each action alternative would require amendments to one or both forest plans. Because each 

amendment addresses a specific resource concern, potential effects are analyzed in terms of the 

management prescription and how it would affect lands and minerals special uses (rather than in 

terms of acres treated). Analysis is presented in terms of “additional effects,” meaning those 

beyond what would be imparted by the alternatives themselves.

Amendments Addressing Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

These are the most complex amendments being considered under the project, because they 

address six different elements in managing MSO habitat and because the proposed amendment 

language for four of these elements varies for each alternative. Additionally, two elements apply 

only to the Coconino NF and one applies only to the Kaibab NF. These amendments are 

summarized in table 2 in chapter 1 and appendix B of the DEIS.

In alternatives B–D, restoration would still occur and the number of acres treated would be the 

same. There would be no overall change in the effect to lands and minerals special uses.

Amendments Addressing Goshawks

This amendment would apply to both forest plans under all action alternatives. This amendment 

would not alter the acres treated for restoration activities and, therefore, would have no additional 

effects to lands and mineral special uses.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

300 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Amendment Addressing Garland 

Prairie Proposed Research Natural Area (RNA)

This amendment would apply to the Kaibab forest plan only. Under alternative C, it would add 

language to allow prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order to maintain and/or restore 

the ecological qualities of the proposed RNA. 

This amendment would have no long-term effect on lands and mineral special uses. There could

be short-term, temporary impacts as site-specific restoration activities were implemented under 

alternative C. Project-specific mitigations would minimize these effects. These short-term effects 

and mitigations are described above in “Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.” 

Amendment Addressing Cultural Resources

This amendment would apply to the Coconino forest plan only. Under all action alternatives, it 

would delete the standard referring to a “no effect” determination and would add the words “or no 

adverse effect” to the remaining standard. Management would strive to achieve a “No effect” or 

“no adverse effect” determination.

This amendment would have no additional effect on lands and mineral special uses, as 

authorization of such uses already requires archaeological and cultural screening. 

Cumulative Effects 

Actions considered in determining cumulative environmental effects are those known or 

anticipated to occur within the project area over the next 10 to 15 years. The cumulative effects 

analysis area is the same as the project area.

Appendix F of the DEIS lists all past, present, and future projects that may have a cumulative 

effect on the current project. Projects pertinent to lands and lands special uses were extracted into 

a separate document for this analysis (see appendix A of the lands specialist report).

The Forest Service has completed 270,894 acres of vegetation and prescribed fire treatments. 

Approximately 32,345 additional acres have been treated by permit holders as part of routine 

maintenance around authorized facilities (SUDS record search, April 2012). These actions have 

indirectly reduced the risk of fire to infrastructure authorized by lands special use permits and 

minerals permits.

Appendix A of the specialist report lists several ongoing and future fuels treatment projects within 

the project area, which are summarized in table 88. Under all alternatives, these actions would 

continue, as well as the routine clearing done by permit holders. These projects would contribute 

to forest health and restoration of the forest to its natural vegetative structure, which would, in 

turn, contribute to the reduction of fires that could produce severe effects to lands special uses 

and minerals (such as damaging or destroying infrastructure).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 301

Table 88. Past, present, and future Forest Service actions with 

vegetation and/or fuels treatments within the project area

Project Type Acres Treated (Prescribed Fire 

and Vegetation Treatments)

Past (2000–2010) 270,894

Current/Ongoing 178,717

Reasonably Foreseeable (Future) 229,640

Private/State/Other non-NFS lands 37,634

Lands Special Uses – Routine Maintenance 32,345

Total 749, 230

Alternative A 

Permit holders would continue to conduct routine vegetation clearing on 32,345 acres as part of 

routine facilities maintenance, and 716,885 acres would be treated in planned fuels projects. Fire 

risk would be reduced on a total of 749,230 acres. Forest health would not be increased and the 

risk of wildland fires of high intensity would not be reduced. There would be no measurable 

cumulative effects to special use site access.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Under alternatives B, C, and D, the number of treated acres would be nearly doubled, to over 1.3 

million (table 89). This would double the number of acres with reduced risk of wildfire. Overall 

forest health would be improved and the risk of severe wildland fires that could endanger lands 

special use and mineral sites would be reduced. 

Table 89. Combined acres treated under current project and 

past, present, and foreseeable projects

Alternative Acres Treated 

Under This Project

Total Treated Acres in 

Project Area

A 0 749, 230

B 587,923 1,337,153

C 593,211 1,342,441

D 556,279 1,305,509

Scenery

A summary of the scenery report is presented here. The specialist report (Minor 2013) is 

incorporated by reference.

Currently the scenery resources of Coconino NF are managed through application of the visual 

management system (VMS). The VMS was used to develop visual quality objectives (VQOs) that 

are prescribed in the forest plan for all lands within the Coconino NF. The VQO classifications 

range from preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, to maximum modification. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

302 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

VMS process has been updated in the scenery management system (SMS), which has been 

incorporated into the Kaibab NF forest plan via amendment 6 for the Williams and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts (USDA 2010). 

This analysis evaluates the following questions in order to respond to/meet forest plan direction 

(questions 1 through 3) and key issues from scoping/public involvement (question 4 through 5): 

1. To what degree would the proposed restoration activities affect the scenic integrity of the 

treatment area? (Measure: acres not meeting scenery integrity objectives (SIO).) 

2. Would visual disturbances detract from the natural appearance or be outside of the 

historic range of variability? (Measure: qualitative description of anticipated 

disturbances.) 

3. Would the proposed restoration activities sustain the valued scenic character and its 

scenery attributes through time? (Measure: acres meeting scenic character and scenery 

attributes.)

4. In what ways would prescribed fire smoke affect scenery? (Measure: qualitative 

description.) 

5. Are large, mature trees retained as part of the scenic character? (Measure: Percent of old 

growth allocation in ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper.) 

A summary of the analysis completed for scenic resources is presented here. Please refer to the 

specialist report for methodology, data, and supporting information. 

Affected Environment

The 4FRI project area encompasses the Arizona communities of Flagstaff, Mountainaire, Munds 

Park, Kachina Village, Mormon Lake, Doney Park, Parks, Williams, and Tusayan. Major access 

routes include Interstates 40 and 17, U.S. Highways 89, 180, and 66, State Route 64, County 

Road 73, and Lake Mary Road (Forest Highway 3). These communities and routes receive high 

use and users have high concern for scenery.

The treatment area’s dominant scenic identity is the continuous ponderosa pine forest, 

interspersed with grasslands, meadows, or sagebrush that overlays the undulating volcanic and 

sedimentary landforms. The treatment area is viewed at foreground, middle ground, and 

background distances from sensitive roadways, trails, and recreation sites located within and 

around the boundary. 

Historic conditions better match scenic preferences for large, mature trees and forests with a more 

open structure (Ryan 2005), and current photos (see chapter 1 of the DEIS and figure 10 in the 

specialist report) are more representative of the higher density, continuous canopies, and similar 

ages classes found today. The vegetation is the dominant scenic attribute in the treatment area. 

There are substantial opportunities for improvement of the ecological function and for scenery 

attributes. The existing vegetation density and lack of high frequency, low-intensity fires are 

inconsistent with the desired scenic character and its sustainability: 

• The dense conifer vegetation often obscures views of existing scenic attributes within 

the forest canopy and understory, and greatly restricts viewing access to potential scenic 

attributes.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 303

• Intertree spaces and openings have been filled with small and medium sized trees, where 

if these were open, they would allow for sunlight to reach the forest floor adding to the 

scenic quality as well as helping provide for greater understory vegetation composition 

and abundance. 

• Currently there is a risk of large scale, high-intensity fire that could result in elimination 

of the vegetation scenic attributes that are desired.

• Seeps, springs, and ephemeral drainages have had conifers encroach and overtop other 

species reducing their function over time. When these features are functioning properly, 

they provide high scenic quality and auditory, tactile, and visual features not found 

without the presence of water.

• Throughout the forest, unauthorized routes and redundant roads have been created. 

These detract from the scenic quality of the area by forming unnatural linear features 

that are uncharacteristic of the landscape. Decommissioning the routes and roads will 

restore characteristic features.

Scenery Attribute Risk Determination

Scenic stability uses a descriptive six level rating scale from very high stability to no stability to 

identify the degree to which the scenic attributes of the valued scenic character are likely to be 

perpetuated within the ecosystem. The highest scenic stability ratings indicate resilient 

ecosystems that are functioning within their reference conditions. Lower scenic stability ratings 

indicate areas where intensive vegetation management practices intended to restore ecosystem 

health and function could also benefit scenery by restoring and/or maintaining valued attributes of 

scenic character. Areas of higher scenic stability need less intensive management activities to 

maintain their valued scenic character attributes.

Scenery Attributes

• The ponderosa pine forest has an open appearance with tree groups of varying ages, 

sizes, and shapes and a mosaic of interspaces and openings. This scenery attribute is at 

high risk.

• Old age ponderosa pine trees are well represented across the treatment area. This scenic 

attribute is at moderate risk.

• The ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forests in the treatment area have a healthy, 

diverse understory. This scenic attribute is at moderate risk. 

• The treatment area has a resilient forest where frequent, low-intensity fires occur 

without widespread crown fire or high-intensity surface fires. This scenery attribute is 

at high risk.

• Much of the forest has open appearance of tree groups and openings making the forest 

more resilient to mortality from insects and disease. This scenery attribute is at 

moderate risk.

• Within the ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forests, there is a healthy, resilient 

understory of trees and shrubs including Gambel oak, aspen, and sagebrush. Prairies and 

grasslands provide important contrast to the forested landscape. The scenic attributes 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

304 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

of Gambel oak, grasslands, and pine-sagebrush are a moderate risk, aspen is at 

high risk.

Minor Scenery Attribute

• Springs, seeps, and ephemeral channels are important scenery attributes because of the 

diversity they provide, including contrast in color, shape, and texture. In addition, the 

presence of water, even if seasonal, increases the valued scenery. The scenic attributes 

of seeps, springs, and ephemeral channels are at moderate risk. 

• While roads provide important scenery viewing platforms, as well as access to the 

forest, scenic quality is improved by decommissioning some closed forest roads and 

unauthorized routes. The scenery attributes of decommissioned roads are at 

moderate risk.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

The treatment area would continue to be mostly natural appearing for several years. Important 

scenic attributes such as scattered groups of trees of all ages with grassy openings, evidence of 

frequent low-intensity fire, large mature tree character, diverse understory, prominent aspen, 

Gambel oak and grasslands, and functioning riparian systems and ephemeral channels that 

historically contributed to the attractiveness of the area would continue to decline.

Views into the project area from roads, trails, recreation sites, and residential areas would be 

further reduced due to the overstocked condition of the stands, and the grass/forb/shrub 

understory component would continue to decline in composition and decrease in abundance. 

Unauthorized routes and closed roads would not be decommissioned, and would continue to be 

visible linear features uncharacteristic in the landscape. If unauthorized routes and 

decommissioned roads were unused, they would naturalize in 10 to 20 years. 

In the event of an uncharacteristic high-intensity wildfire such as the Schultz Fire (Coconino NF, 

2010), the existing landscape character would be suddenly altered with little opportunity to slow 

or control the change. The landscape would be changed to such a degree that very few of the 

scenic objectives could be met in the short or long term. An uncharacteristic high-intensity, largescale wildfire would redefine and reshape the existing landscape character for decades if not 

centuries. The appearance and character of the area would shift from densely forested to patchy 

and open. The overstory component and green canopy would be absent or drastically reduced, 

depending on the intensity of the fire. For a few decades, the landscape would be dominated by 

blackened, dead standing trees; if allowed to come down on their own, the trees would likely fall 

in a dense, jackstraw pattern. Although short term, smoke from high-intensity wildfire would 

cause scenic quality to be diminished and obscure views to scenic attributes. Emergency fire 

suppression would result in short-term impacts (see specialist report for details).

A vegetation type change could occur especially if there is widespread drought and/or if trends 

toward higher temperatures and less annual precipitation continue. These changes would be 

visible throughout the treatment area in the foreground of forest roads and trails, and as middle 

ground and background views from communities and developed recreation sites. There would be 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 305

long-term (more than 20 years) impacts to major landscape attributes such as ponderosa pine 

forests with large, mature trees.

This alternative would not meet the project desired conditions or forest plan direction. It would 

not move the treatment area toward scenic stability. Over time, scenic stability would decrease 

and move to very low. No action would result in continuation of current risks to scenic attributes 

and it is reasonable to assume that these risks would increase each year and could be exacerbated 

by climate change. The alternative would not meet long term scenic integrity objectives since 

these are dependent upon improving the condition of scenic attributes so that they are more 

resilient to ecological stressors.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the ponderosa pine forest on the Coconino and Kaibab 

NFs. The timeline for analysis is 20 to 30 years because most long-term effects of the alternatives 

are assessed out to a 20- to 30-year timeframe (with the exception of large-scale, high-intensity 

wildfire which is more difficult to project).

The cumulative effects of past management activities are visible as the existing conditions. 

Vegetation management practices, fire suppression, and overgrazing have resulted in the current 

even-aged forest structure, overstocked conditions, and sparse understory trees, shrubs, grasses, 

and forbs. 

The short term cumulative effects (1 to 5 years) of the alternative combined with similar current 

and future restoration treatments and prescribed burning projects are expected to be negligible, 

unless additional large-scale, high-intensity wildfires occur in the ponderosa pine type. In the 

absence of large, high-intensity wildfires, long term cumulative effects of the alternative, present 

and future vegetation management, and prescribed burning projects would be small and localized. 

The desired landscape character of an open forest with tree groups of varying sizes, shapes, and

ages, presence of large, mature trees, and healthy, diverse understory would not be met. Other 

scenic effects could include bare ground from grazing and recreation use and unhealthy forest 

conditions resulting from disease and drought. These combined effects could result in a trend 

toward declining landscape attributes, and less sustainable landscape character.

If wildfires burn large areas, the scenic quality would be decreased, and there would be long-term 

negative changes (10 to 100 years) in scenic character. The scenic attributes that contribute to 

high scenic integrity—such as an open forest with tree groups of varying ages, sizes, and shapes, 

large, mature trees, and healthy, diverse understory—would not be present. The scenic impact of 

a high-intensity wildfire combined with scenic impacts from adjacent land development, 

powerline development and maintenance, and dispersed recreation use could result in a 

cumulative impact of greatly diminished scenic integrity in burned areas for up to a decade or 

more. In some places there would be a chance that climate change could contribute to type 

changes in parts of the ponderosa pine forest so that these characteristics would be replaced with 

difference landscape characteristics, which would also cumulatively impact scenic attributes. 

Environmental Consequences Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

• There would be short-term effects to scenery from restoration treatments in aspen 

stands.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

306 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Spring restoration includes removal of some vegetation and prescribed burning near the 

sites. There are minimal to low effects to SIO from these treatments. Effects would be 

similar to those described for mechanical treatment and prescribed fire, although at a 

much smaller scale.

• Channel treatments would have short-term effects (lasting 1 to 5 years) on scenic 

attributes. Bare soil would be exposed, rocks and logs moved, and some disturbance 

from vegetation restoration would be visible for a few years until the desired understory 

vegetation begins to fill in and reestablish. These activities would have low effects to 

SIO. Following treatment, these areas would be improved and would make progress 

toward desired conditions. 

• All fencing actions (aspen, ephemeral channels) would introduce unnatural linear 

features into the landscape that would not be natural appearing. Since these are isolated

areas scattered around the over 500,000-acre project area, introduction of linear features 

would have low effects. If the fences are maintained, wood fencing would have very low 

effects and would meet the SIO. If they fall into disrepair, this would detract from their 

appearance, but they would still meet the SIO. Wire fencing materials would be more 

noticeable than wooden fences. Wire and metal posts can be shiny and their color can 

contrast with the natural surroundings. Mitigation measures would be used to introduce 

the fewest contrasting elements where wire fencing is used, and effort would be made to 

site locate the fencing where it would be least noticeable. Wire fencing would have low 

effects and would meet the SIO.

• Placement of jackstraw treatment would not meet the requirements for foregrounds of 

high concern level roads in high SIO areas. Even if these sites were allowed to drop one 

SIO level, they would still not meet the basic definition of moderate SIO that 

“noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed” (USDA 2000). 

• Beyond the foreground 300 feet, jackstraw piling may be suitable and would be 

mitigated by carefully locating piles. These areas would drop to moderate SIO for 10 to 

20 years. As jackstraw barrier begins to deteriorate, trees lose their brown needles, 

branches break off, and logs lose their bark and grey out, the jackstraw piles compress 

and become less noticeable. It is anticipated that the aspen would be large enough to 

withstand ungulate browsing by the time the jackstraw piles have deteriorated or burned 

in followup prescribed fire activities. These areas would improve over time to the 

mapped SIO. 

• Potential effects from road reconstruction include exposure of bare soil, tree stumps, and 

contrasting color and texture of surfacing materials. These effects would usually be short 

term (1 to 5 years) and become less noticeable as natural vegetation is reestablished and 

the surfacing material begins to be incorporated into the soil horizon. 

• The construction of new roads would add new, unnatural linear features into the 

landscape on a temporary basis. Trees would be removed, soil exposed, and roadbeds 

constructed including minimal drainage features. This would have moderate effects on 

the mapped SIO. In high SIO (about 50 percent of the area), the new road construction 

would drop these areas one level to moderate until the roads are decommissioned and 

begin to naturalize, about 5 years later. Mitigation measures and BMPs would hasten 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 307

recovery. The new temporary roads would naturalize over time and become less 

noticeable to the casual observer.

• There would be short-term effects (up to 5 years) from road decommissioning as the 

roads have drainage established, are roughened, seeded, and mulched with pine needles

and small slash. Mitigation measures and BMPs would be used. The existing closed 

roads would naturalize over time and become unnoticeable to the casual observer. 

• Hand thinning usually has little or no short-term effects on scenery. Trees are cut down

and then cut into segments that can be treated. Effects may include slash from limbing 

and topping trees. Project mitigations require slash to be treated. 

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be a low to moderate effect on scenic quality during and immediately following 

mechanical treatment methods. The presence of skid trails, landings, and piled or scattered slash 

would also result in a moderate reduction of the scenic quality until harvesting activities are 

completed and mitigation measures are implemented. The effects in these areas would be short 

term (lasting 1 to 5 years after treatment) since skid trails would be rehabilitated and activity 

generated slash would be treated or mostly removed to be utilized. The ground disturbance 

resulting from using machines to pile slash would be noticeable for 1 to 3 years after project 

completion, depending on how quickly the areas revegetate. Scraped trees would heal or scars 

would become less noticeable over time. 

Where utility corridors cross the restoration area, proposed mechanical treatments adjacent to the 

corridors will help to improve the scenic quality. Mitigation measures have been developed to 

feather treatments or increase their intensity close to the corridors. This will have the effect of 

reducing the contrast between the cleared corridors and dense stands adjacent to them.

Effects from pile burning would be primarily limited to the immediate dead and live fuels of the 

slash pile, although some scorching and mortality of residual trees would be expected. Smoke 

from pile burning would be dense when the piles are ignited and as they burn, but would be short 

term in most cases.

Prescribed fire would likely result in short term, moderate reduction in scenic quality. The 

presence of charred surface vegetation and red or black trees would present a contrast to the

otherwise green surroundings. These contrasts would soften and become less noticeable within 

two or three growing seasons after project completion as the understory component (grass, aspen, 

and oak seedlings, etc.) moved in, as singed trees either recovered or die, and as dead standing 

trees fell down. Smoke from prescribed fire would be heaviest during the initial burns and would 

reduce visibility of the scenic landscape in the short term. Some residual smoke could be 

expected to continue in small localized areas where stumps or roots smolder for up to a few 

weeks. The residual smoke would have little, if any, effect on visibility of scenic attributes.

Effects may last longer and be more pronounced in areas of moderate to high fire intensity. In 

these locations, standing dead trees may be present for a decade or more until they fall down. 

Understory vegetation would take some time to recover but is expected to look more natural 

appearing within 5 years. Since it is expected that this would be produced over no more than 10 

percent of the treatment area, effects would be localized and limited. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

308 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Repeat burning would result in fewer effects than described above since fuel loadings would be 

reduced by initial prescribed burns. Effects are expected to be noticeable for a shorter duration, 

and within 2 to 3 years, the areas will be natural appearing. Smoke from repeat burning would not 

be as heavy as initial burns and would be expected to be shorter in duration. 

When the treatments are all completed, it is expected that many of the ecological stressors would 

be lessened, and the scenic stability would move from low to high on 589,923 acres within the 

restoration area. The proposed treatments and prescribed burning would make progress toward 

desired conditions and would improve forest health and resilience. The treatments would increase 

scenic stability for large, mature trees. The treated areas would have more of the desired 

landscape characteristics and would make progress toward meeting SIO. The 4FRI project would

help achieve the desired conditions for scenery as defined in the forest plans. 

Forest Plan Amendments

Coconino NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (for more details refer to appendix B of the 4FRI 

DEIS) would be required on the Coconino NF to implement the proposed action: 

• Amendment 1: The effects of this amendment would be to move vegetation in these 

areas slightly closer to restored conditions. They would slightly improve scenic stability 

in MSO PACs, but these areas would still be at risk for disturbances such as highseverity wildfire or large scale insect and disease outbreaks.

• Amendment 2 would move vegetation closer to desired conditions, improve scenic 

stability, and overall scenic integrity. It would result in improved forest structure and 

pattern, forest health, and vegetation composition and diversity, and overall forest 

resiliency, all of which would relate directly to decreased risks to scenery from natural 

disturbances. 

• Amendment 3 would have no effect on scenery. 

Kaibab NF 

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the Kaibab 

NF to implement the proposed action: 

• Amendment 1 would move vegetation closer to desired conditions, improve scenic 

stability, and overall scenic integrity. It would result in improved forest structure and 

pattern, forest health, and vegetation composition and diversity, and overall forest 

resiliency, all of which would relate directly to decreased risks to scenery from natural 

disturbances. 

• Amendment 2 would defer all MSO monitoring to the project’s FWS biological 

opinion. This amendment would have no effects on scenery. 

Cumulative Effects

The short term cumulative effects (1 to 5 years) of alternative B combined with similar current 

and future restoration treatments and prescribed burning projects are expected to be widespread. 

There would be evidence of restoration treatments, and the scenic quality would be decreased in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 309

some places in most of the ponderosa pine on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. For example, in 

areas where restoration treatments result in skid trails or removal of vegetation for staging areas 

or log decks, there could be a cumulative impact to scenic attributes where activities such as 

dispersed recreational use, grazing, or adjunct private land or infrastructure development is also 

occurring. In general, these cumulative impacts to scenic attributes would be localized in scale (1 

to 10 acres) and would most likely be of short-term duration (1 to 5 years). 

In the long term (5 to 20 or 30 years), there would be large and widespread improvement in the 

health and sustainability of scenic attributes that make up the landscape character of the 

ponderosa pine forest. Forest users would experience an open forest with tree groups of varying 

ages, sizes, and shapes, large, mature trees, and healthy, diverse understory. In many places, the 

scenic integrity objectives would be met.

When natural stressors such as wildfires or insect outbreaks occur, or human activities such as 

new utility corridors, a new recreation site, or a new private subdivision are developed, the 

cumulative effects of alternative B and other projects would result in small and localized changes 

in the scenic character of the ponderosa pine forest. When drought conditions or unusual weather 

events as a result of climate change occur, the ponderosa pine forest would be healthier and more 

resilient to such events, thus counteracting the effects of climate change which are likely to 

detract from scenic attributes. The overall trend from this alternative would be toward improving 

landscape attributes and sustainable landscape character.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects would be similar to alternative B. About 10 percent more acres would be mechanically 

treated and about 1 percent more acres burned than alternative B. Alternative C would improve 

understory species abundance and composition slightly more than alternative B since the 

combined thinning and prescribed fire has been found to be a more effective tool (Laughlin et al. 

2008). This alternative would result in slightly better understory response and slightly more large 

trees, which would better meet scenic objectives. 

This alternative adds construction of up to 15 weirs and 20 weather stations (3 acres of 

disturbance) to support watershed research. The construction of these features would create 

contrast with the characteristic natural landscape. Mitigation measures would assure the weirs are 

constructed of natural appearing materials and are of a shape and form that does not create too 

much contrast. This would help blend with the surrounding landscape. A weather station located 

outside of the immediate foreground (300 feet) would use nonreflective surfaces, and careful 

siting would help these features blend with the surrounding landscape.

Forest Plan Amendments

Coconino NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B) would be required on the 

Coconino NF to implement alternative C:

• Amendment 1: This alternative would increase the size of trees that could be removed 

in 18 MSO PACs and allow use of low intensity prescribed fire within 56 PAC core 

areas. Old, large diameter trees are an important part of the scenic quality. There may a 

slight decrease in scenic quality as a result of removing larger diameter trees, but it 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

310 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

would also result in slightly greater reduction of tree density in these areas which is 

important for scenic stability. Of these areas, 56 would also receive low intensity

prescribed burns. While there would be short-term effects from tree removal and 

burning, there would be slightly higher improvement in overall scenic stability than with 

alternative B or D. The amendment would allow for more treatments which would open 

up these PACs more, creating the potential for views beyond the immediate foreground. 

This would have a somewhat greater positive effect on scenic quality than action 

alternative B or D.

• Amendment 2: The effects to scenery would be the same as with the alternative B 

Coconino NF forest plan amendment 2. 

• Amendment 3: There would be no effects to scenery from this amendment. 

Kaibab NF 

Three nonsignificant forest plan amendments (see appendix B in the 4FRI DEIS for details) 

would be required on the Kaibab NF to implement alternative C:

• Amendment 1: The effects of this alternative would be the same as for alternative B 

Kaibab NF forest plan amendment 2. 

• Amendment 2: There would be a short-term (1 to 5 years) decrease in scenic quality 

from mechanically treating and prescribed burning Garland Prairie RNA. (The details of 

effects from mechanical thinning and prescribed fire are found under alternative B.) 

Those effects would be similar to those described earlier in this chapter. In the long 

term, these treatments would result in improved plant vigor and species diversity (Noble 

2013), which would be positive for scenic drivers, hikers, equestrians, and others. There 

would be an improvement in the scenic stability and scenic integrity for this area with 

this amendment. 

• Amendment 3 would have no effects on scenery.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects would be similar to alternative B. There would be slightly more negative 

short term cumulative effects in localized areas (those with skid trails, pile burns, and staging 

areas) since this alternative would mechanically treat and burn about 10 percent more acres, and 

prescribed burn about 1 percent more acres. However, there would also be slightly more positive 

long term cumulative effects from counteracting drought and insect damage likely to occur as a 

result of climate change since there would be more mechanical treatment and burning to facilitate 

greater forest resiliency.

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects

The short term (1 to 5 years) visual disturbances from restoration activities would be within the 

reference conditions of the area. In the short term (1 to 5 years), the disturbances would be visible 

and would lower the scenic quality. In about one-third of the area where both thinning and 

prescribed fire occur, the results would be similar to those found with alternative B. In the 

remainder of the restoration area only receiving mechanical treatments, the natural appearance of 

the area would begin to recover, but over time, these improvements would become static and 

begin to deteriorate again. Throughout project implementation, it is expected that the valued 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 311

scenic character would begin to improve, but the risks to scenic attributes would only improve in 

the short term (1 to 5 years), and the risk of high-intensity fire would begin to increase in the 

landscape. In addition, if a wildfire were to start, it is likely that while it would be mostly a 

surface fire, it might be moderate and high intensity, and many trees would be scorched and killed 

as a result, thus reducing scenic quality. This alternative would result in about one-third as much 

understory vegetation improvement than with alternative B or C.

Forest Plan Amendments

The effect of forest plan amendments is the same as described for alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

The short term cumulative effects (1 to 5 years) of alternative D combined with similar current 

and future restoration treatments and prescribed burning projects are expected to be widespread, 

but of small scale (1 to 10 acres) where they occur. For example, in areas where there would be 

evidence of mechanical thinning treatments, together with evidence of grazing and dispersed 

recreation impacts or infrastructure development (utility lines), the scenic quality would be 

cumulatively decreased in these places.

In the long term (5 to 20 or 30 years), initially there would be widespread improvement in forest 

structure, but vulnerability to wildfire would remain high, thus limiting forest resiliency. While 

this alternative would counteract impacts to large trees and understory vegetation resulting from 

climate change and the resulting drought and vulnerability to insect outbreaks and disease, it 

would be very limited. Specifically, the understory would not be as healthy or diverse, and 

understory vegetation would continue to be cumulatively impacted by grazing, recreational use, 

and abiotic factors such as drought. 

When natural stressors such as wildfires or insect outbreaks occur, or human activities such as 

new utility corridors, a new recreation site, or a new private subdivision are developed, the effects 

of alternative D could serve to slightly counteract the scenic effects of these activities and other 

projects, but it would be limited compared to other alternatives. When drought conditions or 

unusual weather events as a result of climate change occur, the ponderosa pine forest would not 

be as resilient to such events. The overall trend to scenic quality resulting from this alternative in 

combination with other activities and projects would be toward level or downward for improving 

landscape attributes and sustainable landscape character.

Range

A summary from the range specialist report is presented here and the complete report is 

incorporated by reference (Hannemann 2013). Refer to the specialist report for additional 

information that includes: methodology, the grazing history of the project area, and supporting 

information. This analysis incorporates questions designed to evaluate movement toward desired 

conditions and concerns brought up by the public during scoping: (1) How would project 

activities affect livestock grazing management in the project area? (2) How would project 

activities affect livestock forage in the project area? (3) Would livestock grazing affect the 

restoration of understory species? (4) How would livestock grazing affect the ability to return fire 

as a natural process to the project area? and (5) How would climate change affect the range 

resource and how would the project affect climate change (relative to range)?
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

312 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Affected Environment

The affected environment for the range analysis is the project area. Only allotments within the 

project area have been considered. Within the project area, approximately 791,250 acres are 

within grazing allotments and 197,779 acres are not grazed by livestock. The amount of each 

allotment lying within the project area averages 65 percent and varies between 0.002 to 100 

percent. 

There are 49 livestock grazing allotments of which 47 are active allotments and 2 are vacant (see 

the specialist report for figures displaying allotments within the project area). Of the 49 

allotments, 40 permit cattle grazing and 9 permit sheep grazing.

There are 229 main pastures located within the project area. Main pastures are the large pastures 

that are used more than 20 days per year by livestock. Total allotment acres and acres by RU can 

be found in the specialist report in table 2. Restoration units were used for display purposes only 

and were not used in the analysis. See the specialist report for details on allotment grazing 

management systems, current numbers of permitted livestock, and seasons of use within the 

project area.

A study was conducted in 2011 on the trends of understory vegetation within the project area 

(Brewer 2011). Currently the range has seen a shift to warm season species dominance in many 

areas of northern Arizona as a result of relative lower winter moisture and higher summer 

moisture. The warm season plant that has benefited most from this shift is blue grama. Because 

blue grama is a dense mat forming species, many areas have seen an increase in perennial plant 

cover and ground cover. The trends of forage production during this time period have been static. 

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences for alternatives B, C, and D are based on the application of 

resource protection measures and are based on the environmental consequences in the 

silviculture, fire, and wildlife (herbaceous understory analysis) reports. See the “Range” section 

in appendix C of the DEIS for the complete list of resource protection measures.

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

The expected reduction in understory vegetation would reduce the amount of forage available to 

livestock. Over time, livestock numbers would be reduced. A reduction in forage followed by a 

decrease in livestock numbers has been recorded through the last 100 years throughout the project 

area. There is no reason to believe that this trend would not continue under alternative A. 

Uncharacteristic wildfire would have an adverse impact on livestock grazing management and 

forage until the area recovers and structural improvements are replaced.

All Alternatives – Direct and Indirect Effects

• Mechanical treatment and prescribed burning would increase understory vegetation. 

Understory species and composition would change primarily by increasing shade 

intolerant understory species and decreasing shade tolerant species. The increase in 

forage would have a short term (within 3 years) and long term (10-year) beneficial effect 

to livestock grazing.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 313

• Spring exclosure areas would not be available for livestock grazing and would have an 

adverse impact on available forage within a pasture. However, these exclosures would 

not be large enough and would not amass in any particular pasture to reduce pasture 

stocking rates. In addition, by the time these exclosures would be completed, it is 

anticipated the increase in pasture forage by tree thinning and burning would help to 

offset the forage lost within the exclosures. Spring projects would not have a 

measureable impact on the capacity of allotment or grazing management.

• The ephemeral drainage improvements would have a benefit to livestock grazing 

management by increasing forage by improving bank stability and decreasing the 

amount of sediment to downstream stock tanks. 

• Aspen exclosure areas would not be available for livestock grazing and would have an 

adverse impact on available forage within a pasture. However, the majority of these

exclosures would not be large enough or amassed in any particular pasture to reduce 

pasture stocking rates. Aspen projects would not have a measureable impact on the 

capacity of allotment or grazing management.

• Road and route decommissioning would have a beneficial effect to livestock grazing by 

growing additional forage in the old roadbed. Constructing temporary roads would have 

a temporary adverse effect to livestock grazing when the forage on the road was 

disturbed. Road reconstruction would have no effect on livestock grazing. No road 

project would have a measureable impact on the capacity of allotment or grazing 

management.

• There are no long term, unavoidable adverse effects in alternatives B–D related to 

livestock grazing because effects would be short term in nature and wouldn’t affect 

grazing permit capacity. There would also be no irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources because forage would grow back in the next growing season 

after treatments or after managed grazing. Alternatives B, C, and D would be in 

compliance with the Coconino and Kaibab National Forest plans for livestock grazing.

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would affect all grazing allotments within the project area and 184 main summer 

pastures with mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Ten pastures would be affected by 

prescribed fire-only treatments. Mechanical treatments by allotment would vary from 0 to 35,658 

acres. See the specialist report for detailed information on acres affected by allotment. Prescribed 

fire only treatments by allotment would vary from 0 to 19,458 acres. Mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments would have a benefit to livestock grazing management by an increase in forage 

(also see effects common to all action alternatives). Treating up to two pastures per year per 

allotment would have an adverse effect to livestock grazing management and forage until the 

burn area shows range readiness (see “Effects Common to All Action Alternatives”).

The alternative would reduce the risk of fire burning with high severity through multiple pastures, 

burning fences and other structural range improvements, and adversely affecting livestock 

management.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

314 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would affect 192 main summer pastures with mechanical and prescribed fire 

treatments. Two pastures would be affected by burning only treatments. Table 7 in the specialist 

report displays the total acres of vegetation and prescribed fire treatments within each allotment. 

Thinning treatments by allotment vary from 0 to 36,895 acres. Prescribed fire only treatments by 

allotment vary from 0 to 17,939 acres. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would have a 

benefit to livestock grazing management by an increase in forage. Up to two pastures per year per 

allotment would have an adverse effect to livestock grazing management and forage until the 

burn area shows range readiness (“Effects Common to All Action Alternatives”).

Alternative C reduces the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire through thinning 434,189 acres and 

burning 593,473 acres within the project area over the next 10 years. These treatments would 

reduce heavy fuel loading, break up the tree canopy, raise the tree canopy, and burn fine ground 

fuels (Lata 2013). These actions reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires that can burn with 

high severity through multiple pastures, burning fences and other structural range improvements, 

and adversely affecting livestock management.

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative D would affect 184 main summer pastures with mechanical and prescribed fire

treatments. Ten pastures would be affected by prescribed fire only treatments. Nine pastures that 

have mechanical treatments would not have prescribed fire. Mechanical treatments by allotment 

would vary from 0 to 35,658 acres. Prescribed fire only treatments by allotment would vary from 

0 to 18,799 acres. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would benefit livestock grazing 

management by increasing forage. Up to two pastures per year per allotment would have an 

adverse effect to livestock grazing management and forage until the burn area shows range 

readiness. The nine pastures that do not have prescribed fire would not need to be rested from 

livestock grazing. However, the pastures would not have the added benefit of increased forage 

that prescribed fire provides. 

The alternative would reduce the risk of fire burning with high severity through multiple pastures, 

burning fences and other structural range improvements, and adversely affecting livestock 

management.

Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative B and D

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1: The amendment would affect grazing in that it would increase forage which 

would benefit livestock grazing. According to the fire analysis (Lata 2013), the amendment would 

result in a slight decrease in crown fire potential for the 18 MSO PACs that would receive 

mechanical treatments. If amendment 1 is not implemented on the Coconino NF, these 18 PACs 

(approximately 10,700 acres) would retain the current forest structure that places them at high 

risk of high-severity fire. If prescribed fires were implemented on acres adjacent to PACs, it is 

more likely that some fire lines would need to be created to avoid burning in the PAC, producing 

ground disturbance that would be less likely under the proposed amendment. Ground disturbance 

would result in short-term reduction in forage for authorized livestock. The monitoring portion of 

the amendment would not affect grazing management. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 315

Amendment 2 would allow 29,017 acres to be managed for an open reference condition. There 

would be increased understory vegetation which benefits grazing management. According to the 

fire analysis (Lata 2013), an indirect effect of this amendment would be a reduced potential for 

active crown fire which would benefit grazing. If amendment 2 were not implemented, it is likely 

that another type of restoration treatment would have been developed which would reduce the 

risk of severe fire behavior and improve forest structure, forest heath, and understory 

productivity. Restoration actions in general would benefit grazing management. The canopy cover 

portion of the amendment would have no effect on grazing management. 

Amendment 3 would have no effect on grazing management. 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1 would allow over 27,000 acres to be managed for an open reference condition. 

There would be increased understory vegetation which would benefit grazing management. 

According to the fire analysis (Lata 2013), an indirect effect would be a reduced potential for 

active crown fire which would benefit grazing. If amendment 2 were not implemented, it is likely 

that another type of restoration treatment would have been developed which would reduce the 

risk of severe fire behavior and improve forest structure, forest heath, and understory 

productivity. Restoration actions in general would benefit grazing management. The canopy cover 

portion of the amendment would have no effect on grazing management. 

Amendment 2 defers all MSO monitoring to the project’s FWS biological opinion. Based on past 

experience with other projects, this would not be likely to affect grazing management. 

Alternative C

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1: The effects (benefits) of implementing amendment 1 in MSO habitat is the same 

as described for alternative B. In alternative C, additional acres of MSO habitat would receive 

prescribed fire which would further benefit grazing management. 

Amendment 2: The effects of implementing amendment 2 would be the same as described for 

alternative B. 

Amendment 3 would have no effect on grazing management. 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1: If amendment 1 was implemented, the same effects that are described above for 

alternative B would apply to 27,765 acres that would be managed for an open reference 

condition. 

Amendment 2: Amendment 2 would have no effect on grazing management. Grazing is currently 

excluded from the proposed RNA. 

Amendment 3: If amendment 3 (MSO habitat management on the Kaibab NF) was implemented 

(or not implemented), the effects would be minimal to grazing management. Grazing 

authorizations would continue to comply with the forest plan requirements that apply to grazing 

in MSO habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

316 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

The spatial area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes 100 percent of the acres 

within allotments that occur within the project area. This is a logical boundary because changes to 

grazing management in one pasture of an allotment affect the management in the entire allotment. 

The project area occupies an average of 65 percent of each allotment that the project area

intersects, with several being wholly within the project area and the minimum occupancy of a 

single allotment being less that .01 percent. 

The timeframe for these combined effects is 10 years because changes in condition and trend in 

the vegetation depend on the presence of favorable growing conditions after cattle leave the 

pasture. If growing conditions are favorable, plant height and canopy cover would completely 

recover from the impacts of the proposed forest management activities within 1 year. If growing 

conditions are not favorable, plant recovery would occur more slowly (up to 2 to 3 years). 

Vegetation recovery from the other activities and natural events may take this long depending on 

annual weather conditions, particularly annual precipitation.

Cumulative Effects Baseline

The baseline includes the vegetation and prescribed fire projects from 2001 to 2010 including 

140,614 acres of mechanical thinning and 119,751 acres of prescribed fire within the project 

boundary, most on the same locations. The baseline also includes the use of up-to-date grazing 

systems and adaptive management on all the allotment acres of the cumulative effects area, and 

the use of over 20 livestock/elk exclusions to protect aspen and over 15 exclosures to protect 

riparian areas.

Past restoration projects (see specialist report, cumulative list of projects) within the project area 

have increased forage and understory vegetation. Forest Service policy has changed over time and 

the forests are now allowed to be managed for uneven-aged tree management and to allow fire to 

return to its nature role in the ecosystem. Current grazing management conducted utilizing 

adaptive management procedures in order to meet objectives established in existing allotment 

management plans is also part of the existing baseline.

Areas included with the cumulative effects analysis area, external to National Forest System 

lands, are primarily lands under private ownership and lands under the jurisdiction of the State of 

Arizona and National Park Service. Grazing on adjacent forest land is grazed very similarly to 

grazing within the project area. Livestock grazing occurs in the majority of these areas except 

within Walnut Canyon National Monument. Private lands within communities are not typically 

utilized by livestock with the exception of horses. Private lands outside of communities typically 

provide forage for livestock consisting mostly of small livestock operations, but can provide for 

larger livestock operations when the private land is in larger blocks. State lands are also utilized 

by livestock with many of these State lands managed in conjunction with Forest Service 

allotments. There are no indications that livestock use within these areas is going to change 

dramatically during the next 10 years. In addition, these lands are not large enough that livestock 

use could be moved to these areas to offset the effects of the proposed treatments. 

Livestock Grazing Management and Livestock Forage

The cumulative effect to livestock grazing management and livestock forage for alternative A is 

no change in the short term but a long-term decrease in forage with an increase in trees. Within 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 317

the cumulative effects boundary, 588,182 acres related to the 4FRI project boundary would not be 

treated and would have no change in the short term, but there would be a long-term decrease in 

forage with an increase in trees. When other current and foreseeable projects are considered, an 

additional 146,891 acres will be treated (31,492 mechanical thinning and prescribed fire, 49,466 

acres of thinning only, and 65,933 acres of prescribed fire only) and affect 15 percent of the 

allotment acres. Livestock grazing management would be affected by these treatments the same 

as the other alternatives. Pastures would be rested and deferred as these treatments are completed. 

With less treatment acres, pasture rotations will be less affected.

The alternatives B, C, and D proposed treatments and the other current/foreseeable projects

generally overlap in time and space (see cumulative effects description in appendix F). When the 

4FRI acres are combined with vegetation and prescribed fire projects, 74 percent of the 

cumulative effects boundary (89 percent of all allotments) would have reduced forage. However, 

this would be a short-term effect with a typical duration of 1 year after burning. 

In the long term, forage would increase on these same acres in the cumulative effects boundary. 

In terms of grazing management, even though 705,695 acres have reduced forage for a period of 

1 year, this would not affect grazing management because mitigation restrictions would apply to 

all planned and ongoing projects. No more than one main pasture per allotment would be burned 

per year on the majority of the allotments, and this would not add to the grazing management 

effects because these mitigation restrictions also apply to these ongoing projects.

Livestock Grazing Impacts to Fire

The cumulative effect of livestock grazing on meeting the objective of restoring fire to the 

landscape for alternative A would not change because of the minimal and managed direct or 

indirect effect of current grazing (see effects analysis). The same would be true for alternatives B, 

C, and D, with minimal and managed direct and indirect effects of livestock management with the 

proposed treatments (see effects analysis). The ability to meet fire objectives in alternatives B, C, 

and D when considered with ongoing and foreseeable projects that includes 65,933 acres of 

prescribed fire (see cumulative effects report) would not be affected due to current grazing 

management strategies that are in place and the use of adaptive management.

Livestock Grazing Impacts to Understory

The cumulative effect of livestock grazing to achieving increased understory response for 

alternative A would not change because of the minimal and managed direct or indirect effect of 

current grazing (see effects analysis). The same would be true for alternatives B, C, and D, with 

minimal and managed direct and indirect effects of livestock management with these proposed 

treatments. The ability to achieve increased understory response in alternatives B, C, and D when 

considered with ongoing and foreseeable projects that includes 31,492 mechanical thinning and 

prescribed fire, 49,466 acres of thinning only, and 65,933 acres of prescribed fire only treatments 

(see cumulative effects report) would not be affected due to current grazing management 

strategies in place and the use of adaptive management. Livestock grazing would adapt to 

changes in forage conditions through time. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

318 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Transportation

A summary of the transportation report is presented here. The specialist report (Fleishman 2013) 

is incorporated by reference.

Currently, there are approximately 4,278 miles of roads within the analysis area that are managed 

under Forest Service jurisdiction. Of this total, approximately 3,334 miles are open roads and 944 

miles are closed roads. In addition to the roads that are currently managed by the Forest Service, 

there are approximately 374 miles of additional unauthorized roads that have been identified 

within the analysis area, for a total of approximately 4,652 miles of roads on Forest Service lands 

within the project area. See the specialist report for details on miles (and locations) of road by 

operational maintenance level (1 through 5). 

Not all of the 4,278 miles of road within the 990,000-acre analysis area would be needed for 

removal of forest products. A haul route analysis identified approximately 2,297 miles of existing 

road necessary for removal of forest products after harvest.

Environmental Consequences

The analysis focuses on two items related to the purpose and need of the project:

• How access to the project area is met by alternative in order to implement the project. 

The unit of measure is miles of system road and miles of temporary road.

• How each alternative moves toward a safe and more affordable transportation system 

that is identified within each forests respective travel analysis project (TAP) documents. 

The unit of measure is miles of decommissioned roads, miles of open road for a more 

affordable road system, and miles of road maintenance for road safety.

The timeframe for the analysis is the life of the project (about10 to 15 years). 

Alternative A

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative A, current road management would continue on the two forests, including 

maintenance of the open road system. The current transportation system would be adequate to 

access the project area as defined in each forest’s respective travel management decisions in both 

the short term (current to 10 years) and long term (greater than 10 years from current). No harvest 

activities would occur and no new temporary roads would need to be constructed. 

Additional NEPA analyses would be necessary to carry out on-the-ground closure activities

identified in the TAPs. Therefore, this alternative does not move toward a safe and more 

affordable road system. Road maintenance would continue, primarily on maintenance level 3 

through 5 roads, as well as a limited basis on level 2 roads.

Cumulative Effects

There are no actions proposed from this alternative, hence there are no cumulative effects.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 319

Alternatives B, C, and D

Assumptions used to evaluate environmental consequences include the following: 

• Maintenance of open existing roads may include road maintenance activities described 

in the Forest Service Operations and Maintenance Handbook (FSH 7709.59) such as, 

but not limited to, road blading, draining maintenance, culvert installation, culvert 

replacement, spot surfacing and resurfacing, removal of slides and slumps, removal of 

danger trees, removal of roadside vegetation for improved site distance on the roads, 

dust abatement, removal of overhanging vegetation to allow for access, and installation 

of signs. This activity would be expected to occur on approximately 2,297 miles of road. 

Dust abatement would be expected to occur on about 7 miles of road. 

• Road reconstruction would include road improvement activities on about 30 miles of 

roads and road relocation on about 10 miles of roads. 

• Road improvement activities are defined as activities that result in an increase of an 

existing road’s traffic service level, expansion of its capacity, or a change in its original 

design function. Road improvement activities would include, but are not limited to, 

widening corners to improve turn radiuses, straightening of road segments to improve 

haul safety, installing turnouts to improve haul safety, and changing alignments at road 

intersections to improve site distance and haul safety. These activities may result in 

limited removal of vegetation. These activities would occur on approximately 30 miles 

of roads within the project area. 

• Road relocation in the vicinity of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams would 

be designed to lessen the impact on these waters. Road reconstruction may include 

relocating roads out of drainages, construction of rock rip-rap, installation of new 

culverts, and construction of low water crossings. Up to 10 miles of road within the 

project area would have this road treatment. The desired condition for stream road 

segments is to have ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses slow the speed 

of waterflow, have access to the flood plain, transport sediment, and maintain longer 

sustained base flows on the landscape, rather than a flush of peak flows. Flood plains 

would function to lessen the impacts of floods on human safety and health. 

• Temporary roads that are necessary for treatment purposes would be used during project 

implementation to provide for access to the area to implement the proposed activities 

(see alternative descriptions for road related activities and miles).

• Once treatment has occurred, temporary roads would be decommissioned. Unneeded, 

closed (ML 1) roads would be decommissioned as needed and returned to a more natural 

state. Decommissioning of system roads and unauthorized routes would use an adaptive 

management framework outlined in the specialist report (see specialist report, appendix 

A) and would also utilize design features outlined in the soil and water specialist report. 

This would occur on approximately 517 miles of temporary roads within the analysis 

area and on approximately 42 miles of system roads within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The 2,297 miles of haul route maintenance activity does not provide for full access to the area to 

be able to implement the proposed action and would require additional temporary roads. There 

would be a short-term benefit to transportation system safety through improved surfacing and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

320 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

signage during the life of the project. If the roads are not on a long term maintenance schedule, 

the effect to the safety of the transportation system would decrease as drainages and road surfaces 

continue to degrade. A long term road maintenance schedule after the life of this project is outside 

the scope of this analysis.

An indirect effect of the proposed thinning activities would be improved site distance from the 

removal of vegetation. This effect would decrease over time as vegetation becomes reestablished. 

However, the desired condition is for an open stand condition and these effects would be effective 

in both the short term and a portion of the long term. Routine maintenance activities that occur 

during the life of this project would also maintain site distances. The negative effects of roads on 

soil and water resources would be decreased (see the soil and water quality and riparian specialist 

report). The spot surfacing and graveling component of this activity would require the use of a 

local rock source (either commercial or rock sources on Forest Service land), but would not 

deplete all available rock sources in or adjacent to the project area. The total amount of material 

necessary is not quantifiable at this time, but would be identified with specific road packages as 

implementation proceeds. There would be energy use necessary for this activity for equipment to 

be able to maintain roads and haul trucks to transport material. The amount of energy use would 

be minimized for haul needs of material by utilizing the closest pit available for the material type 

needed for the project.

Road reconstruction actions in the vicinity of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams 

would have a limited effect to the needed transportation system for access because the existing 

transportation system could be utilized (in its current location). Reconstruction would provide a 

related short-term and long-term benefit to soil and water resources that are discussed within the

soil and water quality specialist report. The reconstruction away from streams would provide a 

slight (due to number of miles) but major improvement in the ability to maintain roads, and as 

such, would provide a short-term and long-term benefit to a more affordable and safe road system 

(on those miles that would be treated). Reconstruction by definition would require the use of a 

local rock source (either commercial or rock sources on Forest Service land), but would not 

deplete all available rock sources in or adjacent to the project area.

Temporary and closed system roads would provide access to the area to implement the project.

This would be primarily a short-term effect that would occur during the first 10 years of the 

project. A small, unquantifiable portion of this effect would be expected to occur after a 10-year 

timeframe due to implementation timeframes associated with contracts. Effects to soil and water 

resources, as well as recreation resources, would be expected to occur during this timeframe and 

are discussed within the respective specialist reports. Temporary road construction would be 

governed by contract specifications to minimize resource impacts to soil and water, wildlife, and 

recreation resources, and would utilize design features within these specialists’ reports to 

minimize impacts to the respective resources.

The decommissioning of 42 miles of current system roads on the Coconino NF would begin to 

move the road system toward a safe and more affordable transportation system. The bulk of this

work would be expected to occur in the short term of the first 10 years of the project. The 42 

miles of decommissioned system road would be a long term beneficial effect and would move 

toward a more affordable transportation system.

Decommissioning would occur on approximately 904 miles of road in these alternatives. This 

activity would occur after the removal of forest products and would not have an effect on having 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 321

a transportation system in place (to provide access for implementation). There may be a negative 

effect to access from implementing prescribed fire in alternatives B and C. There may be a 

negative effect on approximately 904 miles of roads in both the short term and the long term, and 

an indirect effect to implementation if roads slated for decommissioning are to be used as fire

lines/containment lines for prescribed burns. This would primarily be a long-term effect on 

maintenance due to the timeframe for naturalization of decommissioned roads (10 years).

In alternative D, the acres of prescribed fire would be decreased, and the corresponding road 

mileage that would be used to access prescribed fire sites would be decreased to about 225 miles 

of road. Alternative D also has an indirect effect to implementation if 225 miles of road slated for 

decommissioning are used as fire lines/containment lines for prescribed fires. The 

decommissioning of about 904 miles of road would have a short term and long term positive 

effect on creating a safe and more affordable transportation system.

Forest Plan Amendments

On both forests, the proposed forest plan amendments address management in MSO habitat, 

management of canopy cover, managing select acres for an open reference conditions, and 

propose using vegetation and prescribed fire treatments in the proposed Garland Prairie RNA on 

the Kaibab NF (alternative C only). No road activities would be affected by implementing (or not 

implementing) the proposed amendments. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary is the approximately 990,000-acre analysis area. The timeframe 

of the cumulative effects analysis for past projects is 10 years. Table 4 in the specialist report 

displays the projects within the analysis area and the corresponding roads related decisions within 

the projects.

There are about 251 miles of road decommissioning within previous projects. This project would 

add an additional 904 miles of decommissioned roads. The total of about 1,155 miles of 

decommissioned roads would move the cumulative effects analysis area closer to a safer and 

more affordable road system.

In addition (see table 4 in the specialist report), there are 0.8 mile of road reconstruction in other 

projects that add to the 10 miles of road reconstruction from the 4FRI project for a total of 10.8 

miles of road reconstruction. This would have a limited effect on creating a safer and more 

affordable road system. As stated above, the 30 miles of road improvement will improve safety. 

Thus, there are a total of about 1,198 miles (1,155 miles of decommissioned roads, 30 miles of 

road improvements, and 10.2 miles of relocated roads) of action proposed between past, present, 

and future foreseeable roads projects and the 4FRI project that would contribute toward a safer 

and more affordable road system.

Climate Change

Introduction

Climate scientists agree that the earth is undergoing a warming trend, and that human-caused 

elevations in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) are among the causes of global temperature increases. The observed concentrations of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

322 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

these greenhouse gases are projected to increase. Climate change may intensify the risk of 

ecosystem change for terrestrial and aquatic systems, affecting ecosystem structure, function, and 

productivity (USDA 2010). 

Southwestern ecosystems have evolved under a long and complex history of climate variability 

and change. Taking into consideration the number of mega-droughts and other climate related 

variation, through time, southwestern systems have some built-in resilience (see silviculture 

report). However, between 1984 and 2006, an estimated 18 percent of southwestern coniferous 

forest was lost to increased fire and bark beetle outbreaks likely resulting from drought and high 

average temperatures (Williams et al. 2010) (see wildlife report).

This analysis synthesizes the direct and indirect environmental consequence information from the 

specialist reports (as applicable). It incorporates by reference the two planning documents, the 

“Kaibab National Forest’s Climate Change Approach for Plan Revision” (USDA 2012) and the 

“Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning” (USDA 2010). See the 

specialist reports for cumulative effects analyses that consider climate.

Current Conditions and Trends 

Southwest Climate Influences

Only a summary of the Southwest climate influence is described here as the “Southwestern 

Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning” (USDA 2010) is incorporated by reference. 

The climate of the southwestern United States is often referred to as dry and hot; however, it is 

very complex. While low deserts of the Southwest experience heat and drying winds in the early 

summer, forested mountain areas and plateaus may experience cold and drifting snow during 

winter. Climate variability is the norm within this region, as temperature and precipitation 

fluctuate on time scales ranging from seasons to centuries. The major feature that sets climate of 

the Southwest apart from the rest of the United States is the North American Monsoon, which, in 

the U.S., is most noticeable in Arizona and New Mexico. Up to 50 percent of the annual rainfall 

of Arizona and New Mexico occurs as monsoonal storms from July through September (Sheppard 

et al. 2002) (USDA 2010). 

While many factors influence climate in the Southwest during a particular year or season, 

predictable patterns hold across the years and decades to define the region’s climate. In summary:

• The overall aridity relates to a global circulation pattern known as Hadley circulation, 

which creates a semipermanent high-pressure zone over the Southwest. 

• Relatively high temperatures with dynamic daily swings define this geographic region.

• Mountains and other differences in elevation affect local climate patterns. 

• The North American Monsoon works to bring moisture from the tropics into the region 

during the summer months (USDA 2010). 

Based on current projections, the primary regional level effects of climate change most likely to 

occur in the Southwest include: warmer temperatures, decreasing precipitation, decreased water 

availability with increased demand, and increased extreme disturbance events. These climate 

change factors could, in turn, affect ecological, weather related disturbances, and socioeconomic 

demands, including increases in: 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 323

• Frequency of extreme weather events (intense storms);

• Wildfire risks; 

• Outbreaks of insects, diseases, and spread of nonnative invasive species;

• Water scarcity coupled with increased demand; 

• National forest socioeconomic uses and demands; and

• Changes in habitat quality and quantity for certain desired wildlife and plant species 

(USDA 2012). 

Climate Change Threats to Local Resources

The purpose of the 4FRI project is to reduce the threats to resources that would be intensified 

with climate change. Currently, over 50 percent of the forested acres in the project area have 

reduced resiliency. Reduced resiliency increases the potential for severe effects from wildfire, 

density-related mortality in trees, and reduced resiliency to insect and disease. Currently, over 34 

percent of the project area could sustain high-severity effects from crown fire. Treatments have 

been designed to increase forest resiliency and sustainability. Resiliency should increase the 

ability of the ponderosa pine forest in the project area to survive natural disturbances such as fire,

insects and disease, and the extreme weather events associated with climate change. Some 

resources at risk in the project area include rare and endemic plants, soil and watersheds, and 

recreation settings:

Rare and Endemic Plants: As environmental conditions change, the ability of rare and 

endemic plant species to adapt may be negatively affected. Water availability may decrease in 

some areas while temperatures generally increase. Climate change, coupled with other factors 

such as habitat loss, could lead to extirpations and increased risks of extinction.

Soils and Watersheds: Uncharacteristic wildfires could result in a loss of soil productivity 

and sediment delivery to connected stream courses. Decreased soil moisture due to less 

precipitation expected from climate change and impaired or unsatisfactory soil conditions 

from wildfire events may lead to an overall decrease in long term soil productivity. There 

may also be a loss of sequestered carbon through burning of the overstory and increased 

erosion rates. 

Recreation Settings: Desired recreation setting characteristics such as large, mature trees, 

healthy understory, and diversity of tree age classes, sizes, and species would be at high risk 

from the effects of climate change. Unmanaged forests have shown increases in tree stress 

and mortality as a result of global warming, and old, mature trees are especially vulnerable 

(Ritchie 2008, VanMantgem et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2010). 

Climate change has the potential to affect burn frequency, carbon storage, and noxious weeds:

Burn Frequency and Carbon Storage: Woods et al. (2012) found that, although burn 

frequency affected the rate and total amount of carbon storage in a ponderosa pine forest, 

both 20-year and 10-year fire return intervals produced forests that were net carbon sinks, 

while the no action alternative forest became a net carbon source. Figure 47 displays carbon 

storage per acre comparing a no action “baseline” scenario with 10- and 20-year fire return 

intervals in a ponderosa pine forest of northern Arizona (adapted from Woods et al. 2012). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

324 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Noxious Weeds: Climate change is expected to be a source of widespread disturbances, and

disturbance is a major factor in noxious weed invasions. Higher temperatures would occur 

and precipitation cycles would be modified from current patterns over large areas. 

Figure 47. Carbon storage per acre comparing the no action baseline scenario with 10- and 

20-year fire return intervals (Woods et al. 2012)

Strategies to Address Climate Change

In 2010, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) hosted a series of climate change workshops with the 

objective being to address climate change questions related to forest and wildlife health, and 

impacts to communities within the 4FRI area. Long term (2040 to 2060), high priority strategic 

recommendations from the workshop included thinning to create a mosaic of clumps and groups 

of trees with intermixed openings, treating more acres with prescribed burns, and allowing more 

wildland fire to burn (see wildlife report). 

This is in alignment with the strategy developed by the Southwestern Region of the Forest 

Service (USDA 2010). Actions to address climate change are those that: 

• Enhance adaptation by anticipating and planning for disturbances from intense storms, 

• Reduce vulnerability by restoring and maintaining resilient native ecosystems,

• Increase water conservation and plan for reductions in upland water supplies,

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Mt C acre-1 

Verification Year

Baseline Scenario

Net C - 20 year Rx burn interval

Net C - 10 year Rx burn interval
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 325

• Anticipate increases in forest recreation,

• Use markets and demand for wood and biomass for restoration, renewable energy, and 

carbon sequestration, and 

• Monitor climate change influences.

The 4FRI project encompasses several of the strategies to address climate change including (but 

not limited to) creating groups of trees with openings, returning fire to the landscape, and 

improving soils and watershed conditions. 

Environmental Consequences

The scope of this analysis is confined to the project area which encompasses almost 1 million 

acres. This scale is most relevant to the questions (USDA 2009) addressed by the analysis:

1. How would climate change affect movement toward the project’s purpose and need 

which focuses on restoring function and resiliency to the ecosystem? The indicators are:

o Qualitative assessment of how the indicators of climate change would affect 

vegetation, fire risk and behavior, rare and endemic plants, noxious weeds, soil 

productivity and watershed function, wildlife species and habitat, and 

socioeconomic use and demand, including grazing and recreation. 

2. How would the project impact climate change in terms of storing or releasing carbon into 

the atmosphere? The indicator is:

o Short-term and long-term emissions and alterations to the carbon cycle caused by 

mechanical treatments and use of prescribed fire. 

Alternative A

For vegetation resources, under the projected future climate conditions, dense forest conditions 

resulting from the no action alternative would be at a high risk of density related and bark beetle 

mortality. Vegetation would have limited resilience to survive and recover from potential largescale impacts. Under drier and warmer weather conditions, the potential impacts of these risks to 

the ecosystem would be increased. Carbon stocks would remain high. 

Individual tree growth would be low to the point of stagnation. As tree density increases, many 

areas would experience higher mortality (release of carbon) than growth (carbon storage). This 

trend would result in areas becoming a carbon source to the atmosphere (see silviculture report).

Although fire-excluded forests contain higher carbon stocks, this benefit is outweighed in the 

long term by the loss that would be likely from uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires if left 

untreated (Hurteau et al. 2011). In alternative A, 34 percent of the area would have the potential 

for high-severity fire effects from crown fire. Large-scale fire events that could occur with no 

treatment (alternative A) could release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Kolb et 

al. (2007) have shown that biomass and carbon may fail to recover. The Horseshoe Fire (on the 

Kaibab NF) was still a net carbon source 15 years after the fire (figure 48 and figure 49). Savage 

& Mast (2005) showed that these conditions can persist for decades (see fire ecology report).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

326 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 48. Fifteen years after the Horseshoe Fire (photo from November 2011)

Figure 49. Healthy ponderosa pine forest

Alternative A would not improve the ability of rare and endemic plant species to adapt to suitable 

areas. Climate change coupled with other factors such as habitat loss could lead to extirpations 

and increased risks of extinction.

Approximately 34 percent of the project area would be at risk from severe high effects from 

crown fire. Larger and more frequent fires would be expected (Marlon et al. 2009). Climate may 

favor the spread of invasive exotic grasses into arid lands where the native vegetation is too 

sparse to carry a fire. When these areas burn, they typically convert to nonnative monocultures 

and the native vegetation is lost (USDA 2010). 

Implementation of alternative A would put soils and watersheds at risk of continued 

uncharacteristic wildfires that could result in loss of soil productivity and sediment delivery to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 327

connected stream courses. Soil erosion models indicate that approximately 24 percent of all soils 

left untreated could be subject to soil erosion above tolerable levels from severe wildfires if all 

soils burned under condition of high-burn severity (see water quality and riparian report). 

In alternative A, approximately 82,592 acres of ongoing vegetation treatments and 96,125 acres 

of ongoing prescribed fire projects would continue to be implemented adjacent to the treatment 

area. Approximately 86,771 acres of vegetation treatments and 142,869 acres of prescribed fire 

and maintenance burning would be implemented adjacent to the treatment area by the forests in 

the foreseeable future (within 5 years). Alternative A does not contain thinning activities that 

would open the canopy and allow for improved soil condition and productivity in about 600,000 

acres of the project area. Within these acres, long-term soil productivity is not expected to be 

improved from the beneficial effects from an increase in grass species that corresponds to a larger 

root network essential in loosening up and improvement of soil structure and promotes better 

water infiltration, air exchange, and soil microbial cycling of nutrients. Water storage in soil is not 

expected to improve and with an expected decrease in precipitation as is predicted with climate 

change, there would be less water available to plants.

In the no action alternative under drier and warmer weather conditions, individual tree growth 

would be limited to the point of stagnation. As tree density increases, many areas would 

experience higher mortality. Wildlife species requiring closed canopy forest conditions or old or 

large tree, snag, and log structure would be negatively impacted in the long term. Open forest, 

savanna, and meadow and grassland habitats would potentially increase in the long-term (see 

wildlife report).

For uses such as authorized grazing, allotment use is managed to respond to seasonal and annual 

changes in forage production. Increased temperatures combined with decreased precipitation 

could lead to lower plant productivity and cover which, in turn, could decrease litter cover. In the 

past, to address drought, some allotments were completely destocked while others were reduced

to as little as 20 percent stocking. Allotment management would change as forage productivity 

changes from climate (see range report).

For recreation resources, climate change was only evaluated as part of cumulative effects. In 

alternative A, increased tree mortality and loss of large, mature trees would result in a cumulative 

decrease in recreation settings within the project area.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Under projected, future climate conditions, restoration treatments (e.g., mechanical treatment, 

prescribed fire) in alternatives B, C, and D would promote low-density stand structures, 

characterized by larger, fire-resistant trees (see silviculture specialist report). Mechanical 

treatment and prescribed burning would help to mitigate the negative impacts of stand-replacing 

fire in dry, dense forests by consuming less biomass and releasing less carbon into the atmosphere 

(Finkeral and Evans 2008, Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). 

Some of the carbon within the estimated 366,159,029 cubic feet (alternative B) to 367,737,165 

cubic feet (alternative C) of biomass removed by mechanical thinning would be sequestered for a 

time in the form of building materials (silviculture specialist report). This assertion is supported 

by Ryan et al. (2010) who found that wood products which substitute standard building materials 

such as steel and concrete produce far less greenhouse gas emissions during their production 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

328 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

while simultaneously sequestering carbon (Fire Ecology Report). Finkeral et al. found that while 

the treatment initially produced a 30 percent reduction in the carbon held in trees, it significantly 

reduced the threat of an active crown fire, which they predicted would kill all the trees and release 

3.7 tons of carbon per acre in any untreated areas. 

Alternatives B-D reduce the potential for high-severity effects from crown fire by about 27 

percent when compared to alternative A. Mechanical treatment and prescribed fire that produce 

only low- to moderate-severity effects would reduce onsite carbon stocks and releases carbon into 

the atmosphere at a lower rate than high-severity fire. 

The low to moderate effects that would result from alternatives B-D should afford for greater 

carbon storage in southwestern fire-adapted ecosystems over time (Hurteau and North 2009). 

Research by Hurteau and North (2009) has also shown that the long-term gains acquired through 

prescribed fire and mechanical thinning outweighs short-term losses in sequestered carbon. In the 

long term (e.g., 100 years), thinning and burning would create more resilient forests less prone to 

stand-replacing events and, subsequently, able to store more carbon in the form of large trees.

For rare and endemic plant species, the actions proposed in alternatives B–D would provide more 

resiliency to local vegetative communities (see silviculture and wildlife understory analysis), 

restore natural fire regimes, and reduce the risk of habitat loss due to severe high effects (see fire 

ecology report). These actions are particularly important to all endemic species analyzed with one 

exception, Bebb’s willow (see botany report). 

In alternatives B–D, potential increase/spread of noxious or invasive weeds caused by disturbance 

would be reduced to a nonsignificant level by incorporating the mitigations, BMPs, and noxious 

or invasive weed treatments for the project. Increasing forest resiliency and function within the 

project area would diminish the impacts of climate change.

It is important to understand that in order to realize a management based net gain in soil carbon, 

there must be an increase in carbon entering the soil through a productivity increase over current 

levels or a decrease in decomposition and erosion (Neary et al. 2002). Productivity in arid forest 

ecosystems is low due to moisture limitations and the decomposition rates are among the lowest 

in the continental U.S. (Neary et al 2002), which is true for this project area.

It is likely that the forests within the project area have more stored carbon than pre-European 

settlement due to a change in stored carbon from understory to stand level tree productivity 

(Neary et al. 2002). As stated above, heavily stocked sites are subject to rapid removal of stored 

carbon through wildfires. The action alternatives propose removal of overstory through harvest 

on about 388,000 acres in alternatives B and D, and up to about 434,000 acres in alternative C. 

This is expected to actually decrease the amount of carbon sequestered over current stand 

conditions, but the harvest action will convert the existing stored carbon onsite to belowground 

storage, thus reducing its potential loss from wildfire (Neary et al. 2002). Implementation of 

alternatives B–D would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire that could result in loss of soil 

productivity, downstream water quality, and watershed function as well would improve overall 

soil productivity in the long-run through increased understory vegetation. The increase in ground 

cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which have higher fine root turnover rates than large, woody 

plants would result in greater soil organic matter content over time.

The thinning, under the action alternatives, would improve soil condition and productivity for soil 

infiltration and nutrient cycling because an increase in grass species corresponds to a larger root 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 329

network essential in loosening up and improvement of soil structure and promotes better water 

infiltration, air exchange, and soil microbial cycling of nutrients, thus improving the ability of the 

soil to store water which would mitigate the potential loss of overall net precipitation that is 

expected with climate change. Decomposition rates are also likely to increase with a grass/forb

ecosystem compared to a lignin based forest ecosystem, so there may be an increased loss of soil 

carbon after treatments as the site transitions to a grass/forb understory. Erosion is expected to 

decrease across the site with the removal of 900 miles of roads and the reduced risk of standreplacing wildfires and the expected increase in soil productivity, thus potentially increasing 

carbon storage onsite. Neary et al. (2002) suggests that “perhaps the best carbon sequestration 

strategy in these inherently low productivity ecosystems is to return their structures to within their 

historical range of variability.” The action alternatives would move toward a more sustainable 

carbon sequestration scenario for the project area, especially for soil carbon. Carbon sequestration 

is a means to counter expected human impacts that exacerbate climate change.

Risks associated with dense forest conditions would be reduced and forest resiliency large-scale 

disturbance under drier and warmer conditions would be improved by implementing the 

treatments proposed under alternative B–D. The increased acres of mechanical and prescribed 

burning in alternative C would be expected to increase forest health and resiliency more than 

alternative B or D. Individual tree growth would improve, resulting in larger average tree sizes. 

Wildlife species requiring habitat elements associated with closed canopy forest conditions or old 

or large tree, snag, and log structure would be more sustainable as forest resiliency improved. 

Open forest, savanna, and meadow and grassland habitats would remain stable in the long term 

(wildlife specialist report).

Alternatives B–D would increase forage in 89 percent of the allotments in the project area. 

Collectively, there would be the no discernible additive (adverse) effects or benefits that were 

offset by the increase in forage, decrease in moisture, or increase in temperature. Livestock 

grazing would continue to use adaptive management to match forage production with livestock 

numbers in a grazing management system (range specialist report).

For recreation resources, climate change was only evaluated as part of cumulative effects. 

Alternatives B–D, as well as other restoration projects, would cumulatively result in improved 

forest structure, composition and diversity, and more resilient forest conditions, decreased tree 

stress, and potential for decreased mortality. This would reduce the risk of losing desired 

recreation setting characteristics such as large, mature trees, healthy understory, and diversity of 

tree age classes, sizes, and species.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101). This disclosure focuses on soil, water, and vegetation resources.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

330 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Soils and Water

Overall, ponderosa pine, aspen, and grassland restoration along with other proposed treatments 

including prescribed fire would be expected to increase ecosystem resiliency to uncharacteristic 

fire, and move soils and watersheds toward satisfactory and functional condition in both the short 

and long term and maintain or improve long-term soil productivity and water quality (see soils 

specialist report and water quality and riparian specialist report).

Vegetation 

Short-term effects of tree removal and prescribed fire would reduce intertree competition, and 

free up growing space for residual trees and understory vegetation. Under all alternatives, the 

proposed actions and associated design features would not affect long-term productivity of forest 

vegetation and timber resources (see silviculture specialist report).

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Alternatives B, C, and D

There would no unavoidable adverse effects to soil and water resources. Potential adverse effects 

would be minimized or mitigated through appropriate use of resource protection measures such as 

SWCPs and BMPs as outlined in the “Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook” 

(Forest Service Handbook 2509.22)(USDA 1990) and site-specific BMPs included in appendix C. 

There would be no unavoidable adverse effects related to forest vegetation and timber resources 

as adverse effects are mitigated by design features, BMPs, and mitigation.

For MSO, fire and smoke effects from prescribed burning may disturb individual birds in and 

adjacent to the treatment area, but timing restrictions and low-severity burn prescriptions would 

reduce impacts and largely lead to no effects or only short-term effects; however, the amount of 

burning across the landscape under alternatives B, C, and D would create the potential of smoke 

settling into a PAC. If this did occur, it could potentially lead to adverse effects to individual 

owls. 

For MIS there is likely to be a short-term decrease in habitat quantity and quality for Abert’s 

squirrel (Coconino NF) and the tassel eared squirrel (Kaibab NF). Habitat quality and quantity 

would increase in the long term. 

In the short term (1 to 5 years), visual disturbances from restoration activities would be within the 

reference conditions of the area. In the short term (1 to 5 years), the disturbances would be visible 

and would lower the scenic quality. Potential short-term effects include exposure of bare soil, tree 

stumps, and contrasting color and texture of surfacing materials. The effects would become less 

noticeable as natural vegetation is reestablished and the surface material begins to be incorporated 

into the soil horizon. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would cause short term and temporary decreases in provision of 

recreation opportunities on parts of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. There may be short-term 

displacement of recreationists during implementation and a temporary decrease in the quality of 

recreation settings due to the presence of slash, skid trails, log landings, temporary road 

construction, and creation of dust and noise from logging operations and log hauling. Logging 

operations including loss of herbaceous cover, disorderly management activities, and noise and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 331

dust, as well as lack of information, have been found to decrease the quality of recreation settings 

and user satisfaction. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

An irretrievable commitment of resources is associated with alternative A. In alternative A, there 

is the likelihood that there would be additional larger fires with larger areas with higher severity 

fires than occurred historically. Post-fire effects that require decades of recovery would be 

irretrievable in the short term and potentially the long term. For example, topsoil which is critical 

to healthy surface vegetation would take centuries to recover. The loss of old growth and old trees 

would be irretrievable as it would require decades and centuries to recover. When considered with 

climate change, it is unknown exactly what the ecological trajectory would be for the replacement 

of old growth and old trees (see fire ecology report).

Cumulative Effects

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable management actions and natural 

disturbances that were evaluated by most resources is located in appendix F. See the project 

record for the comprehensive master list of all projects and for additional information on each 

project.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.”

• All affected tribes would be consulted as each project phase (specifically mechanical 

treatment, spring and channel restoration, and prescribed fire activities) is prepared for 

implementation per consultation requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has approved a programmatic 

agreement for the project and has concurred and provided Section 106 clearance for the 

project. See the project record for documentation. 

• The FWS, in accordance with the ESA implementing regulations for projects with 

threatened or endangered species, provided informal project design input as the 

preferred alternative was developed. Formal consultation will begin after the DEIS 

formal comment period. See the project record for documentation. 

• In order to implement springs, streams, and temporary road construction and 

decommissioning, a 404 permit would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Water quality certification from ADEQ may necessary. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

332 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• At this time, there is uncertainty whether a National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit would be required for stormwater discharges from logging 

roads associated with this project. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has 

published a final rule exempting logging road stormwater discharge from NPDES 

permitting requirements, the United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing the 

matter. Until the Supreme Court rules, it will be uncertain whether a NPDES permit is 

required for this project.
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 333

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted individuals, Federal, State and local agencies, tribes, and non-Forest 

Service persons during development of this draft environmental impact statement.

The following personnel (table 90) were directly involved with preparation of this draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS).

Table 90. 4FRI DEIS Coconino and Kaibab NF preparers and contributors

Name Title DEIS Contribution

Bill Noble Wildlife Biologist, 4FRI Team Terrestrial wildlife

Bob Rich Transportation Engineer, Kaibab NF Transportation 

Cary Thompson Wildlife Biologist, Coconino NF Forest Service sensitive wildlife species

Charlotte Minor Forest Landscape Architect, Coconino NF Scenery, Recreation 

Chirre Keckler Forest Wildlife Biologist, Kaibab NF Forest Service MIS and Migratory Birds

Craig Johnson Forest Tribal Liason, Coconino NF Tribal Consultation 

Dave Brewer Ecological Restoration Institute Understory vegetation analysis data

Dave Gifford Archeologist, U.S. BOR Heritage Resources 

David Johnson Southwestern Region Heritage Program 

Manager

Heritage Resources

Delilah Jaworski Social Scientist, TEAMS Socioeconomics 

Dick Fleishman Assistant IDT Leader Soils, Watershed, Transportation, 

Operations 

Henry Provencio IDT Leader, 4FRI Team IDT Leadership

Kit MacDonald Forest Soil Scientist, Kaibab NF Water Quality and Riparian 

Margaret Hangan Kaibab NF Heritage and Tribal Relations 

Program Manager

Heritage Resources

Mark Nigrelli Geospatial Analysis and Data, 4FRI Team GIS, data analysis

Mary Lata Fire Ecologist, 4FRI Team Fire Ecology, Air Quality

Mike Childs Wildlife Biologist, Coconino NF Fisheries

Mike Dechter NEPA Coordinator, Coconino NF NEPA

Mike Hannemann Forest Range and Resource Staff Officer, 

Kaibab NF 

Rangeland Management

Neil McCusker Silviculturist, 4FRI Team Silviculture

Noel Fletcher Wildlife Biologist, Prescott NF Forest Service sensitive and MIS species 

Paula Coté NEPA Specialist, 4FRI Team NEPA 

Richard Periman Southwestern Region Social Science 

Coordinator

Climate Change

Rory Steinke Forest Soil Scientist, Coconino NF Soils 
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

334 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Name Title DEIS Contribution

Sara Dechter Social Science Analyst, Coconino NF Socioeconomics

Sara Reif Wildlife Biologist, ADGF Forest Service MIS

Timory Peel Natural Resource Planner, Recreation 

Solutions Enterprise Team

Editor 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Representatives

Federal

APHIS PPD/EAD, Riverdale, MD

Director, Planning and Review, Washington, DC 

Chief of Naval Operations and Environmental Readiness Division 

OEPC, Director, Washington, DC 

U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC 

FAA, Western Pacific Region, Lawndale, CA

NRCS, National Environmental Coordinator, Washington, DC 

National Agricultural Library, Acquisitions and Serials Branch, Beltsville, MD

NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region, Habitat Conservation Division, Long Beach, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division CESPD-CMP, San Francisco, CA

U.S. EPA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA 

U.S. EPA, Region 8, Denver, CO 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Flagstaff, AZ

USDI National Park Service, Flagstaff, AZ

State

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ 

Arizona Department of Game and Fish, Flagstaff, AZ – Cooperating Agency

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Arizona State Fire

Arizona State Forestry Division, Flagstaff, AZ

Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

Arizona State Junior Senator Jeff Flake 

Arizona State Senior Senator John McCain

Congresswoman Anne Kirkpatrick, Congressional District 1 

Congressman Raul Grivalva, Congressional District 7

Western Area Power Administration
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 335

Local

Apache County, St. Johns, AZ 

Camp Verde City Council, Camp Verde, AZ

City of Cottonwood, Cottonwood, AZ

City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff, AZ

Clarkdale Fire Department, Clarkdale, AZ

Coconino City Council, Flagstaff, AZ 

Coconino County Supervisor, Flagstaff, AZ 

Flagstaff City Council, Flagstaff, AZ

Gila County, Silver City, NM

Graham County, Safford, AZ 

Greenlee County, Clifton, AZ 

Mountainaire Community Council, Flagstaff, AZ 

Navajo County, Holbrook, AZ 

Sedona City Council, Sedona, AZ 

Tusayan City Council, Tusayan, AZ 

Williams City Council, Williams, AZ

Yavapai County, Districts 1 to 3

Tribes

The following tribes and tribal chapters who have historic ties and an interest in the Coconino and 

Kaibab National Forests were consulted with and include: Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo 

Nation including Coppermine, Coalmine, Naness, Lechee, Leupp, Bodaway, Cameron, Tuba 

City, Dilkon and Tolani Lake Chapters, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, San Juan Southern Paiute, 

White Mountain Apache, Yavapai-Apache Nation, San Carlos Apache, Hualapai, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe, Havasupai, Tonto Apache, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, Hopi, and 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. 

List of Agencies, Organizations, and 

Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent

This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) has been distributed to individuals who 

specifically requested a copy of the document (see list below). Distribution methods include 

paper copies, DVDs, and electronic documents posted on the 4FRI Web site: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/4FRI. In addition, the document was distributed to the Federal agencies, 

federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations noted above.
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

336 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

A 

A Bertleson

A Christophersen, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation 

Abe Springer 

Adams

Alan Anderson

Allen

Alicyn Gitlin

Amy Larson

Andy Stahl 

Angela Loscalzo

A Tobin

Amy Waltz, ERI

Andrew Wilder

Absolute Bikes

Arianna Kukuk

AZ Patty

B 

Barbara Cook, ADGF PEP 

B Burnside 

Bill Bunger

Bill Gow

Billie Hughes, Great Broads for Wilderness

Bill Kusner

Bob Lee Tree Service

B Nargessi

B Pribil, Coconino County 

Bob Taylor, Circle T Ranch

Bowen

Brenda Burman, The Nature Conservancy 

Bryan Dykstra, USFS

B Towler, Coconino County 

Bruce Buttrey, Camp Navajo

Bruce Fox

Bruce Greco, ERI

Bruce Moehlman

Bruce Rogers

C 

Chad Hanson, John Muir Project of Earth 

Island Institute 

Charles Strickfaden, NPS

Charlie Ester, Salt River Project

Charles Barnes

Charles Warner

Cheryl Welckle

Ching-Hsun Huang, NAU 

Cindy Cole, AZ Daily Sun 

Clint Chandler

C Taylor, Coconino County 

D 

Dave Hendricks

D Bartosh, City of Cottonwood 

D Walker

Dave Laplander

Dale Kerkvliet, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation 

Dave Dorum, ADGF

David Eagan, NAU

David Gronlund 

Dave Mauer, USFS

David Huffman, ERI 

David Staub 

David Tenney, Navajo County 

Debbie Miley, NEFA

Debra Beckett
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 337

Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress 

Dennis Rayner

Diane Chung, NPS 

Diane Joens

Diane Vosick, ERI

Dick Artley

Don Berry 

Don Steuter

Dorothy Holasek 

Doug Pickrell

Doug Van Gausig

E 

Ed Smith, TNC

Erik Nielson, NAU

Erik Ryberg

Ethan Aumack, GCT

F 

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) 

Stakeholders

Frank Welsh

Fred Amator

Friends of Walnut Canyon

G 

Gail Brooks 

Gari Basham

Garrett Bennett

Gary Beverly

Gary Gumbel

Gayle Mabery

Gene Leach

Glen Conway 

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership

Gregory Terry

Greg Preston

H 

H Ainardi

H Hildebrand

Hannah Telle

Herb Hopper 

J 

Jaina Moan

James Fowler

James Starkey

James Weiss

Jay Lininger, CBD

JCH

J Driscoll

Jeff Williamson

Jeremy Harrell

Jill Rundall

Jim and Glenda Reid

Jim Hall

J Keene

J Moore

J Nabours 

John Cain 

John DeLuca, 

John Davison 

John Holmes 

John Mitchell 

John Murphy 

John Rehrman

John Ryberg 

Joseph Cardone
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

338 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Joshua Hall, ADEQ

Judy Springer 

Jose Ineguez

Justina Boyle

K 

Karen Harwood 

K Burke

Keith Pajkos

Kenny Schipper 

Kevin Boness

K Hemenway

Kim Caringer,

Kim Crumbo

Kit Metzger

Korina Riggin

K Ott

Krista Coquia

L 

Lance McMillon

L Andreani

L Archuleta

Laurie Petersen

Larry Stephenson 

L Fowler

Lina Clair

Liz Hildebrand

L Morales, Rio Radio

Lucy Murfitt 

Lynda Locke, Coconino Co. 

M 

M. Hughes, Keystone Org. 

Mandy Metzger, Coconino County 

Marcus Selig

Marlyn Coy 

Mark Brehl 

Mark Herrington, Graham County 

Mark Herron

Mark Sensibaugh

Marlin Johnson 

Marsha Honn Wiedle

Mary Lou Fairweather

Matt Ryan

Matt Williamson

M Hughes 

Michael Ghiglieri

Mike and Beth Talbot 

Mike Cooley

Mike Lopker

Mike Smith

Mireya Landin-Erdei

Monte Cook 

Mottek Consulting 

N 

Nelson

N Matiella

P 

Pat Shaw

Patrick Graham, TNC

Paul Summerfelt

Paul Whitefield

Penny Pew

Pete Fule

Pete Hancock
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 339

P. Fisher, Gila County 

P. Hellenberg 

R 

R Lunt 

Rich Van Demark

Rick Ermanz

Rob Adams

Rob Smith 

Robert Tohe

Rod Ross 

S 

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club 

Scott Harger, NRCS

Scott Hunt 

Scott Lerich

Sharon Cosentino

Sharon Galbreath, Sierra Club 

Sharon Masek Lopez, ERI 

S Hurteau, TNC

S Potts

S Rose

Stephen Campbell 

Steve Gatewood

Steven Webber

Sue Sitko

Susan Dietrich

Susan Mackay

Steven Webber

Susan Starcevich

Suzy Burnside 

Steve Webber

Sybil Smith, ADEQ

T 

Taylor McKinnon, CBD

T Ernster

Terre Ramirez

Thomas Sisk

Tim Bowden 

Tim Skarupa 

Todd Chaudry 

Todd Schulke, CBD 

Tom Blondell 

Tom Mackin

Tommie Martin, Gila County

Tracy Lynn Cook 

U 

USA Citizen 1

V 

Valerie Horncastle

W 

Wallace Covington

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 341

Glossary

Active crown fire – A fire in which a solid flame develops in the crowns of trees, but the surface 

and crown phases advance as a linked unit dependent on each other. 

Adaptive management – Provides an implementation tool that goes beyond the “predictmitigate-implement” model and incorporates an “implement-monitor-adapt” strategy that 

provides flexibility to account for inaccurate initial assumptions, to adapt to changes in 

environmental conditions, or to respond to subsequent monitoring information that indicates that 

desired conditions are not being met (Forest Service 1909.14.1). 

Age class – A distinct aggregation (grouping) of trees originating from a single natural event 

commonly consisting of trees of similar age.

Basal area (BA) – The cross-sectional area of all trees, measured in square feet per acre.

Biomass – Multiple definitions include: organic matter produced by plants and other 

photosynthetic organisms; total dry weight of all living organisms that can be supported at each 

level of a food chain or web; dry weight of all organic matter in plants and animals in an 

ecosystem; plant materials and animal wastes that function as fuel for fire.

Burn – An effect produced by heating. To undergo combustion, consuming fuel and giving off 

light, heat, and gasses. Also, an area where fire has occurred in the past.

Canopy – A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost layer, in a forest stand. Can be used to refer 

to midstory or understory vegetation in multilayered stands.

Canopy base height (CBH) – A critical factor in crown fire initiation and can be used as an 

indicator of the potential for crown fire initiation (Agee and Skinner 2005, Stratton 2009, Scott 

2003). The desired condition is for CBH to be greater than 18 feet in ponderosa pine. 

Canopy bulk density (CBD) – For ponderosa pine and pine-oak stands. CBD is a good indicator 

of potential active crown fire (Stratton 2009, Scott 2003). The desired condition is for average 

CBD to be less than 0.05 kg/m3 in ponderosa pine.

Canopy characteristics – Canopy characteristics include canopy cover, canopy base heights 

(CBH), and canopy bulk density (CBD) which contribute significantly toward the type of fire that 

can occur (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Canopy cover, CBH, and CBD directly affect the incidence 

and behavior of crown fires and are used for modeling potential fire behavior (Scott 2003, Scott 

and Reinhardt 2005, Agee and Skinner 2005). 

Canopy cover – As used in modeling fire in the fire ecology analysis, canopy cover is the 

horizontal fraction of the ground that is covered directly overhead by tree canopy, the percent of 

vertically projected canopy cover in the stand (Scott and Reinhardt 2005).

Canopy density – In this analysis, the term “openness” is used interchangeably with the term 

“canopy density.” Openness is the percentage of the forested area that is grass/forb/shrub 

interspace.

Clean Water Act (CWA) – Act that provides the structure for regulating pollutant discharges to 

waters of the United States. The act’s objective is “...to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and is aimed at controlling both point 
Glossary

342 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

and nonpoint sources of pollution. The U.S. EPA administers the act, but many permitting, 

administrative, and enforcement functions are delegated to state governments. In Arizona, the 

designated agency for enforcement of the Clean Water Act is the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

Closed road – Intermittent service roads that are closed to vehicular traffic. However, these roads 

may be available and suitable for nonmotorized uses. The closure period must exceed 1 year. 

Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable 

level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally 

given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur 

at this maintenance level (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Clump – A tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a common 

rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is relatively isolated 

from other clumps or trees within a group of trees. A stand-alone clump of trees can function as a 

tree group. 

Condition class (reference FRCC) – A measure of departure from reference conditions that can 

be used to determine how “at risk” key ecosystem components are in the event of a disturbance 

event such as fire.

Conditional crown fire – A crown fire that is dependent on ladder fuels in adjacent stands in 

order for fire to access the crowns. In an area with conditional crown fire, ladder fuels are 

insufficient in a stand for crown fire to initiate, but canopy fuels are sufficient to support crown 

fire if it moves in from an adjacent stand.

Contemporary uses – The use of the forest for traditional and cultural purposes by tribes that 

have aboriginal ties to the land.

Controlled burn – Synonymous with prescribed fire. 

Coarse woody debris (CWD) – Woody debris larger than 7.5 cm (3 inches) in diameter (Graham 

et al. 1994). 

Cover type – Refers to a forest or woodland type, such as ponderosa pine, pine-oak, or mixedconifer.

Crown fire – A fire that advances from top to top of trees or shrubs more or less independent of a 

surface fire. Crown fires are sometimes classed as independent, conditional, or dependent (active 

or passive) to distinguish the degree of independence from the surface fire. Crown fires are 

common in coniferous forests and chaparral shrublands.

Declining – The senescent (aging) period in the lifespan of plants that (for trees) includes the 

presence of large dead and/or dying limbs, snag tops, large, old lightning scars, and other 

characteristics that indicate the later life stages.

Density-related mortality – Based upon established forest density/vigor relationships, densityrelated mortality begins to occur once the forest reaches 45 to 50 percent of maximum stand 

density, and mortality is likely at density levels over 60 percent of maximum stand density (Long 

1985).
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 343

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) – A standard measure of tree diameter measured 

approximately 1.5 meters (4.5 feet) above the ground. 

Disturbance – Any relatively discrete event or series of events, either natural or human induced 

that causes a change in the existing condition of an ecosystem, community, or population 

structure and alters the physical environment.

Disturbance regime – A set of recurring conditions due to a variety of disturbances (e.g., fire, 

flooding, insect outbreak) and their interaction, which characterize an ecosystem within a historic, 

natural, or human-induced context, within a given climate. This set of recurring conditions 

includes a specific range for each of the attributes of these disturbances. These attributes include: 

frequency, rotation period, intensity, severity, seasonality, patch size and distribution, residual 

structure, causal agent, the relative influence of each causal agent, and how they interact (Suffling 

and Perera 2004). The attributes researchers choose to represent a regime will vary depending on 

a researcher’s area of interest (Sousa 1984, Pickett and White 1985, Agee 1993, Skinner and 

Chang 1996, Turner et al. 2001). An accurate description of a disturbance regime must include the 

full range of disturbance events, including those that are rare. 

Diversity – The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan. 

Drought – Periods of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause a serious 

hydrological imbalance. Drought is a relative term; therefore, any discussion in terms of 

precipitation deficit must refer to the particular precipitation-related activity that is under 

discussion. For example, there may be a shortage of precipitation during the growing season 

resulting in crop damage (agricultural drought), or during the winter runoff and percolation 

season affecting water supplies (hydrological drought).

Duff – The fermentation and humus layer lying below the litter layer and above mineral soil; 

consisting of partially decomposed organic matter whose origins can still be visually determined, 

as well as the fully decomposed humus layer. This layer does not include the freshly cast material 

in the litter layer, nor in the post-burn environment ash (Brown 2000). The top of the duff is 

where needles, leaves, fruits, and other castoff vegetative material have noticeably begun to 

decompose. Individual particles usually are bound by fungal mycelia. The bottom of the duff is 

mineral soil. There is a gradient, not a clear division between litter and duff.

Ecological restoration – The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity 

of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on 

establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future 

conditions (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Environmental justice – The fair treatment and involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The White House, with Executive 

Order 12898, elevated environmental justice issues to the Federal agency policy agenda. EO 

12898 instructs each Federal agency to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations” (Clinton 1994). 
Glossary

344 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Ephemeral stream – A stream that flows only briefly during and following a period of rainfall in 

the immediate locality.

Erosion – The wearing away of the land surface by rain or irrigation water, wind, ice, or other 

natural or anthropogenic agents that abrade, detach, and remove geologic parent material or soil 

from one point on the earth’s surface and deposit it elsewhere.

Even-aged stand – A stand of trees composed of a single age class in which the range of tree 

ages is usually plus or minus 20 percent of rotation (SAF 2008). 

Even-aged management – The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests are 

characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and, therefore, tree sizes) throughout the 

forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level of a stand usually 

does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Regeneration in a 

particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time that a stand has reached the 

desired age or size for regeneration and is harvested. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting 

methods produce even-aged stands. 

Evidence-based restoration – Using indicators of trees standing at the time of settlement that are 

no longer present as living trees including snags, downed logs, stumps, and stump holes to guide 

restoration objectives (ERI 2009). 

Fire-adapted ecosystem – An associated group of plant and animals that have made long term 

genetic changes in response to the presence of fire in their environment.

Fire ecology – The study of fire’s interaction with ecosystems.

Fire line intensity – Rate of heat release in the flaming front. 

Fire regime – A set of recurring fire conditions that characterize an ecosystem, within a historic, 

natural, or human induced context, within a given climate. This set of recurring conditions 

includes a specific range of attributes. Sugihara et al. (2006) use the following attributes: 

seasonality, frequency (fire return interval), intensity, severity, size, spatial complexity, and fire 

type. An accurate description of a fire regime will include the full range of fire events, including 

those that are rare and connect to the larger disturbance regime which contains the fire regime as 

a subset. There are five fire regimes:

Fire Regime I – 0 to 35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory vegetation 

replaced);

Fire Regime II – 0 to 35 year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

Fire Regime III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity;

Fire Regime IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high severity; and 

Fire Regime V – 200+ year frequency and high severity. 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 345

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) – An ecological evaluation protocol that uses three classes 

for describing the relative degree of departure from historical fire regimes.

Fire return interval – The number of years between two successive fires in a designated area 

(i.e., the interval between two successive fires); the size of the area must be clearly specified 

(McPherson and others 1990). 

Fire risk – In the context of technical risk assessments, the term “risk” considers not only the 

probability of an event, but also includes values and expected losses. Within wildland fire, “risk” 

refers only to the probability of ignition (both man- and lightning-caused) (Hardy 2005). 

Fire type – Flaming front patterns that are characteristic of a fire.

First order fire effects – Effects resulting directly from the fire, such as fuel consumption and 

smoke production. 

Forage – Browse and herbage which is available and can provide food for animals or be 

harvested for feeding; or to search for or consume forage (ITR 1734-4). 

Forbs – A broadleaved, herbaceous plant (e.g., columbine).

Forest health – The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as 

its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, 

and resilience to disturbance. Note perception and interpretation of forest health are influenced by 

individual and cultural viewpoints, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the 

relative health of the stands that comprise the forest, and the appearance of the forest at a point in 

time (SAF 2008). 

Fuel loads – The amount of combustible material present per unit area.

Group – A cluster of two or more trees with interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns at 

maturity surrounded by an opening. The size of tree groups is typically variable depending on 

forest community and site conditions and can range from fractions of an acre (a two-tree group) 

to many acres. Trees within groups are typically nonuniformly spaced, some of which may be 

tightly clumped (SAF 2008). 

Group selection – A cutting procedure which creates a new age class by removing trees in groups 

or patches to allow seedlings to become established in the new opening (SAF 1998). 

Habitat: A place where an animal or plant normally lives, often characterized by a dominant 

plant form or physical characteristic. Often described for individual species, e.g., spotted owl 

habitat, it is usually used as a generalization of where an animal may live (Fire Ecology Report 

2013). 

Heritage strategy – A strategy developed in consultation with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer to assist in reaching a “No Adverse Effect” determination for the project (see 

heritage specialist report).

Heterogeneity – For the purposes of this analysis, heterogeneity refers to having biodiversity in 

terms of habitat and forest structure across the landscape.
Glossary

346 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Historic range of variation (HRV) – Refers to ecosystem composition, structure, and process for 

a specified area and time period. Historic range of variation (HRV) is often used to determine our 

best estimate of “natural” conditions and functions and, thus, is often our best estimate of the 

natural range of variation (NRV). Ecosystems change over time. It is assumed that native species 

have adapted over thousands of years to natural change and that change outside of NRV may

affect composition and distribution of species and their persistence (Fire Ecology Report 2013). 

Hydrologic condition – The current state of the processes controlling the yield, timing, and 

quality of water in a watershed (FSM 2521.05).

Impaired waters – Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and 

authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These impaired waters do not 

meet water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even 

after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control 

technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the 

lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. See the water quality and riparian specialist report for 

additional information.

Intermediate thinning – The thinning or cutting of trees to improve the composition, structure, 

condition, health, and growth of remaining trees (SAF 1998). 

Interspace(s) – The open space between tree groups intended to be managed for grass/forb/shrub 

vegetation during the long term. Interspace(s) may include scattered single trees.

Invasive – any species which can establish, persist, and spread in an area, and be detrimental or 

destructive to native ecosystems, habitats, or species, and is difficult to control or eradicate. 

Kaibab health focus: Multi-stakeholder, collaborative process that prioritized areas most in need 

of treatment. Primary indicators were related to high risk and high value such as those with closed 

canopies containing large trees. These areas were identified as high priority for restoration 

because they already contain many components of the desired condition, and a single treatment 

may come close to meeting the desired condition, but if lost, would take centuries to replace. See 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf.

Ladder fuel – Fuel, such as branches, shrubs, or an understory layer of trees, which allow a fire 

to spread from the ground to the canopy. 

Landscape scale – A spatial scale and extent expressed in geographic terms within which to 

target action, e.g., projects aimed at forest landscape restoration. In this analysis, the landscape 

scale for vegetation is the ponderosa pine extent.

Large tree – A large tree as defined in the revised “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” (USDI 

2012) is a tree greater than 18-inch d.b.h. 

Litter – The top layer of the forest, shrubland, or grassland floor above the duff layer, including 

freshly fallen leaves, needles, bark, flakes, fruits (e.g., acorns, cones), cone scales, dead matted 

grass, and a variety of accumulated dead organic matter which is unaltered or only slightly 

decomposed. This layer typically does not include twigs and larger stems. One rough measure to 

distinguish litter from duff is that you can pick up a piece of litter and tell what it was (a leaf or 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 347

leaf part, a needle, etc.). Duff is generally not identifiable. There is a gradient, not a clear division 

between litter and duff. 

LOPFA – Landscapes outside of goshawk post-fledgling family areas as referenced in the 

Coconino NF and Kaibab NF forest plans. 

Management area – The mission, goals, and objectives for the forest are realized by applying 

groups of management activities to specific units of land. Groups of management activities are 

called “prescriptions” and the land units are called “management areas.”

Mature tree – A tree that has attained most of its potential height growth. 

Mechanical treatment – Any activity (e.g., silvicultural thinning, biomass removal) performed 

by human-controlled tools (e.g., chain saw, feller-buncher) that results in the removal or alteration 

of wood fiber. Does not include the use of fire.

Mexican spotted owl habitat – Three levels of habitat management are described in the recovery 

plan: protected areas, restricted areas, and other forest and woodland types. 

Monitoring – A systematic process of collecting and storing data related to natural systems at 

specific locations and times. Determining a system’s status at various points in time yields 

information on trends, which is crucial in detecting changes in systems. 

Mosaic – The spatial arrangement of habitat where there is stand heterogeneity, measured at 

many spatial scales from the patch, the stand, and the vegetative community. 

Native species – a species which is an indigenous (originating where it is found) member of a 

biotic community. The term implies that humans were not involved in the dispersal or 

colonization of the species.

Nest/roost recovery habitat – Areas managed to replace nest/roost habitat lost to disturbance or 

senescence and to provide new nest/roost habitat for a recovering owl population (USDI 2012). 

Nonmarket values – The benefits and values associated with national forests that do not have a 

monetary price including clean water and air, biodiversity, forest products, and other goods and 

services.

Nutrient cycling (soil) – The circulation of chemicals necessary for life, from the environment 

(mostly from soil and water) through organisms and back to the environment. 

Old growth – The last stage in forest succession. Old-growth habitat is the sum of the physical 

and biological components of old-growth forest that are essential to maintaining populations of 

certain old growth dependent species of wildlife (Kaibab NF forest plan glossary).

Old growth protection and large tree retention strategy (OGP and LTRS) – Strategy 

developed by the 4FRI stakeholders in 2010 (finalized in 2011), which provides 

recommendations relating to the retention of large post-settlement and old growth trees.

Openness – The percentage of the forested area that is grass/forb/shrub interspace. In this 

analysis, the term “openness” is used interchangeably with the term “canopy density.” 

Classifications of openness for the 4FRI analysis are:
Glossary

348 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Very Open = 70 to 90 percent interspace

• Open = 40 to 70 percent interspace

• Moderately Closed = 25 to 40 percent interspace

• Closed = <25 percent interspace

Operational road maintenance levels – The level of service provided by, and maintenance 

required for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance 

criteria (FSH 7709.58, 12.3). There are five levels: 

Level 1: These are roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. The 

period of storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to prevent 

damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for future resource management 

needs. 

Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user 

comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. 

Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. 

Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience 

at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. 

Level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These 

roads are normally double lane, paved facilities.

Overmature tree – A tree that has reached that stage of development when it is declining in 

vigor and health and reaching the end of its natural lifespan. Indications of later life stages in 

southwestern ponderosa pine include yellowing bark, large limbs, dead and/or dying limbs, flat 

tops, snag tops, lightning scars, and burn scars (cat face).

Passive crown fire – A fire in the crowns of trees in which trees or groups of trees torch, ignited 

by the passing front of the fire. The torching trees reinforce the spread rate, but these fires are not 

basically different from surface fires.

PFA – Goshawk post-fledgling family area as referenced in the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF 

forest plans.

Pile burning – Activity fuels, once piled by machine or by hand, are burned in place.

Planned ignition – The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, mechanical, or 

aerial device where the distance and timing between ignition lines or points, and the sequence of 

igniting them is determined by environmental conditions (weather, fuel, topography), firing 

technique, and other factors which influence fire behavior and fire effects (see prescribed fire).

Precommercial thinning – The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce 

stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees (SAF 2008). 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 349

Prescribed fire – A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) have been met prior to ignition (see planned ignition). 

Properly functioning condition (PFC) – A methodology for assessing the physical functioning 

of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process and a 

defined, on-the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area (National Riparian Service Team 

Definition, 2013).

Protected habitat (Mexican spotted owl) – Protected habitat consists of protected activity 

centers (PACs), slopes greater than 40 percent where timber harvest has not occurred in the last 

20 years (steep slopes), and reserved lands which include wilderness, research natural areas, wild 

and scenic rivers, and congressionally recognized wilderness study areas. The primary objective 

for protected habitat is the protection of the best available habitat for Mexican spotted owls while 

retaining management flexibility to abate high fire risk and to improve habitat conditions for the 

owl and its prey. 

Proposed action – In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or

action that a Federal agency intends to implement or undertake (Coconino NF forest plan 

glossary). 

Recovery unit – A specific geographic area, identified mainly from physiographic provinces, 

used to evaluate the status of Mexican spotted owls and within which to develop specific 

management guidelines (USDI 2012). The recovery unit specific to this analysis is the Upper Gila 

Mountain Recovery Unit (RU), also referred to as the UGMRU.

Recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) – A classification system that describes different 

outdoor recreation settings across the forests using seven standard classes that range from 

primitive, undeveloped settings to urban, highly developed settings. Attributes typically 

considered in describing the settings are size, scenic quality, type, and degree of access, 

remoteness, level of development, social encounters, and the amount of onsite management. See 

the recreation and scenery report for additional information. 

Reference condition (also referred to as historic reference condition) – A range of conditions 

(found in the present or the past) against which the effects of past and future actions can be 

compared. These states can provide an explicit, historically-based context for comparing different 

management effects. Examples include periods before fire suppression or the arrival of an 

invasive species, or a similar but “healthier” modern ecosystem. Ideally, these environmental 

conditions are based on functioning ecosystems where natural ecosystem structure, composition, 

and function are operating with limited human intervention (very minor human-caused ecological 

effects).

Regenerate – The act of renewing tree cover by establishing young trees naturally or artificially 

(SAF 2008). 

Research natural area (RNA) – An area in as near a natural condition as possible that 

exemplifies typical or unique vegetation and associated biotic, soil, geologic, and aquatic 

features. RNAs are set aside to preserve a representative sample of an ecological community, 

primarily for scientific and educational purposes. Normally between 300 and 1,200 acres in size 

(Coconino NF forest plan glossary).
Glossary

350 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Residence time – Time required for the flaming front of a fire to pass a stationary point at the 

surface of the fuel. The length of time the flaming front occupies one point; relates to downward 

heating and fire effects below the surface.

Resiliency – The capacity of a (plant) community or ecosystem to maintain or regain normal 

function and development following disturbance (SAF 2008). 

Resource protection measures – Measures (design features or mitigation) implemented to 

minimize nonpoint source pollution as outlined in the intergovernmental agreement between the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service 

(ADEQ 2008). 

Restoration subunit (SU) – A contiguous geographic area that ranges from 4,000 acres to 

109,000 acres in size. Boundaries are based on 6th code watershed boundaries, state and forest 

transportation systems, and forest administrative boundaries. 

Restoration treatments – Treatments that help recover forest ecosystem resilience and the 

adaptive capacity of forest ecosystems that have been degraded, or are otherwise outside the 

natural range of variation that would preclude sustainability through time. 

Restoration unit (RU) – A contiguous geographic area that ranges from 46,000 acres to 335,000 

acres in size where a need for change (vegetation structure, pattern, spatial arrangement, potential 

for destructive fire behavior and effects) has been identified. Restoration unit boundaries are 

based on 6th code watershed boundaries, state and forest transportation systems, and forest 

administrative boundaries 

Restricted habitat (Mexican spotted owl) – In the case of the 4FRI, restricted habitat is 

ponderosa pine-Gambel oak habitat that does not meet the definitions of protected habitat, i.e., 

there are no known resident Mexican spotted owls, it is not on a slope with 40 percent or greater 

slope and has not had timber harvested in the last 20 years, and is not considered a reserved land 

(e.g., designated wilderness, research natural areas, etc.). The objective in restricted habitat is to 

manage the landscape to maintain and create replacement owl habitat where appropriate while 

providing a diversity of stand conditions and stand sizes across the landscape.

Riparian area – Riparian ecosystems are distinguished by the presence of free water within the 

common rooting depth of native perennial plants during at least a portion of the growing season. 

Riparian ecosystems are normally associated with seeps, springs, streams, marshes, ponds, or 

lakes. The potential vegetation of these areas commonly includes a mixture of water (aquatic) and 

land (phreatic) ecosystems (Coconino NF forest plan glossary).

Road construction or reconstruction – Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence 

of all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1). 

Road decommission – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads 

to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705—Transportation System, USDA 2003). FSM 

7712.11- Exhibit 01 identifies five levels of treatments for road decommissioning which can 

achieve the intent of the definition. These include blocking the entrance, revegetation

waterbarring, removing fills and culverts, establishing drainageways and removing unstable road 

shoulders, and full obliteration, recontouring, and restoring natural slopes. 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 351

Road reconstruction and improvement – Any activity that results in an increase of an existing 

road’s traffic service level, expansion of its capacity, or a change in its original design function. 

Activities include, but are not limited to, the construction of bridges and major culverts, placing 

bar ditches, subgrade repairs, shoulder widening, lane widening, ditch widening, roadway prism 

widening, horizontal and vertical alignment changes, curve widening, and improving site distance 

at road intersections. Vegetation would likely be removed with these activities.

Road reconstruction and relocation – Any activity that moves all or parts of the horizontal and 

vertical alignment of a road, i.e., the roadway prism to a new location and decommissions the old 

alignment. Generally, realignments are for the purpose of moving the road location to a more 

suitable area to mitigate impacts to streams, critical wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural 

resources. Often, reconstruction is used interchangeably with road relocation. This activity 

includes creating a new road alignment in an upland position, installing the proper drainage 

features, signage, and surfacing on the new road alignment, and decommissioning of the old road 

alignment. The new road alignment would require the removal of vegetation at the new alignment 

site.

Road (route) obliteration – See road decommission. 

Road realignment – Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an 

existing road and treatment of the old roadway. 

Scenery management systems (SMS) – Guidance developed by the Forest Service for managing 

scenery and determining the relative value and importance of scenery in the national forest (also 

see VMS and the scenery specialist report for additional information).

Second order fire effects – The secondary effects of fire such as tree regeneration, plant 

succession, and changes in site productivity. Although second order fire effects are dependent, in 

part, on first order fire effects, they also involve interaction with many other nonfire variables 

(e.g., weather).

Severity – The quality or state of distress inflicted by a force. The degree of environmental 

change caused by a disturbance (e.g., fire).

Slash – The residue left on the ground after timber harvest or as a result of storms, fire, girdling, 

or poisoning. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, and the 

heavier branchwood, lighter tops, twigs, leaves, bark, and chips. 

Snag – Standing dead tree from which the leaves or needles have fallen.

Soil function – The characteristic physical and biological activity of soils that influences 

productivity, capability, and resiliency (FSM 2521.05). 

Soil productivity – The capacity of soil, in its normal environment, to support plant growth. 

(Soil) Tolerance – The point beyond which there is high risk that potential may be permanently 

altered or impaired through changes in specified physical, chemical, and biological factors 

brought about by management activities or natural events (FSM 2521.05). 

Spatial pattern – Arrangement of forested areas and openings on the landscape.
Glossary

352 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Spring – In this analysis, springs are natural water features that existed prior to Euro-American 

settlement and were probably functional due to lack of human disturbances (USDA 2009). 

Stand – A contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, composition, structure, and 

age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform conditions to be a distinguishable 

unit. Four classification characteristics are generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical 

site (soils, aspect, elevation, plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, 

structure (density, and age (1-aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis 

(administrative requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 

Based upon Agency guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres. 

Stand density – A measure of the degree of crowding of trees within stocked areas commonly 

expressed by various growing space ratios (e.g., height/spacing) (SAF 2008).

Stand density index (SDI) – A measure of the stocking of a stand of trees based on the number 

of trees per unit area and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the tree of average basal area. It may 

also be defined as the degree of crowding within stocked areas, using various growing space 

ratios based on crown length or diameter, tree height or diameter, and spacing. The computed 

value of SDI is often compared to the species maximum to determine the relative “stand density”

or stocking of the stand. 

Stand structure – The horizontal and vertical distribution of components of a forest stand

including the height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, 

snags, and down woody debris (SAF 2008). 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – The state office responsible for consultation and 

assistance regarding the presence and significance of cultural resources in a project area, efforts 

needed to find and evaluate them, whether the project will cause harmful effects to the cultural 

resource, and how to reduce or avoid the harm.

Stratum/strata (plural) – A layer of soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish 

it from other layers.

Surface fire – A fire that burns over the forest floor, consuming litter, killing aboveground parts 

of herbaceous plants and shrubs, and typically scorching the bases and crowns of trees. See also 

backing fire, crown fire, fire, flanking fire, ground fire, head fire, and understory fire. 

Surface fuel – Fuels lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle 

litter, dead branch material, downed logs, bark, tree cones, and low stature living plants. See also 

duff, fuel, large woody debris, and litter.

Target habitat – A category of Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat intended to provide future 

nesting and roosting habitat (see definition for restricted habitat). A variety of forest structural 

attributes is used to define nesting and roosting habitat (summarized in table III.B.1 of the 

recovery plan and table C-2 of the draft recovery plan). The minimum values identified for the 

forest attributes represent the threshold for meeting nesting and roosting conditions (see the 

definition for threshold habitat). They can also be targets to be achieved with time and 

management. If less than 10 percent of the restricted habitat in ponderosa pine-Gambel oak 

qualifies as threshold habitat, the areas that can eventually achieve all threshold conditions 

simultaneously should be identified as target habitat and managed to achieve threshold 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 353

conditions as rapidly as possible. Because no known Mexican spotted owl nests or roosts occur in 

restricted habitat, target habitat is considered future nesting and roosting habitat.

Temporary road or trail – A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is 

not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212). 

Threatened and endangered species – Species identified by the Secretary of the Interior in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended. See the wildlife report for 

additional information.

Threshold habitat – A category of Mexican spotted owl restricted habitat intended to provide for 

future nesting and roosting habitat (see definition for restricted habitat). A variety of forest 

structural attributes is used to define when nesting and roosting habitat is achieved (summarized 

in table III.B.1 of the recovery plan and table C-2 of the draft recovery plan). These values are 

targets that can be achieved with time and management (see definition for target habitat). When 

the minimum values identified for the forest attributes are met simultaneously, they represent the 

threshold of nesting and roosting conditions. Ten percent of restricted habitat in ponderosa pineGambel oak should be designated as threshold habitat. Management in threshold habitat cannot 

lower any of the forest attribute values below the nesting and roosting threshold unless a 

landscape analysis demonstrates an abundance of this habitat. Because no known Mexican 

spotted owl nests or roosts occur in restricted habitat, target habitat is managed as future nesting 

and roosting habitat. 

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) – A written analysis that determines the maximum amount 

of a pollutant that a surface water can assimilate (the “load”), and still attain water quality 

standards during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the surface water to 

point sources and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for natural background 

levels and seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of safety. See the water 

quality and riparian specialist report for additional information.

Torching – See passive crown fire. 

Traditional cultural property (TCP) – Traditional use areas and places that have been used by 

cultural groups over generations. TCPs within the project area include the San Francisco Peaks on 

the Coconino NF and Red Butte and Bill Williams Mountain on the Kaibab NF. Natural springs 

are also considered TCPs and/or sacred sites by some tribes. Many plants are gathered for 

ceremonial use on or near TCPs. See appendix A of the heritage report for additional discussion 

on management of TCPs. 

Travel Management Rule (TMR) – On December 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the 

TMR. The Agency rewrote direction for motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands under 

36 CFR, Parts 212, 251, and 261, and eliminated 36 CFR 295. The rule was written to address, at 

least in part, the issue of unmanaged recreation. The rule provides guidance to the Forest Service 

on how to designate and manage motorized recreation on the forests. The rule requires each 

national forest and grassland to designate those roads, motorized trails, and areas that are open to 

motor vehicle use. 

Trees per acre (TPA) – a count of the total number of trees on an acre.
Glossary

354 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Unauthorized road – A road that is not a forest road or a temporary road or trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212).

Understory – The trees and other woody species growing under a more or less continuous cover 

of branches and foliage formed collectively by the upper portion of adjacent trees and other 

woody growth. In this analysis, the term understory is also referred to as “herbaceous 

understory.” 

Uneven-aged forests – Forests that are comprised of three or more distinct age classes of trees, 

either intimately mixed or in small groups.

Uneven-aged management – The application of a combination of actions needed to 

simultaneously maintain continuous high forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, 

and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes (to 

provide a sustained yield of forest products). Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the 

number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to retain within each area, thereby maintaining a 

planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged 

stands are single-tree selection and group selection. 

Vegetation structural stage (VSS) – A method of describing forest age and tree size from 

seedling to old forests. The VSS classification is based on the tree size class with the highest 

square foot of basal area and is an indication of the dominant tree diameter distribution (see 

silvicultural report for details (McCusker, 2013). 

Visual Management System (VMS) – The VMS was used to develop visual quality objectives 

(VQOs) that are prescribed in the forest plan for all lands within the CNF. The VQO 

classifications range from preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, to maximum 

modification. The VMS process has been updated in the Scenery Management System (SMS). 

See the scenery report for additional information.

Watershed – The area that contributes water to a drainage or stream (Coconino NF forest plan

glossary).

Watershed condition – The state of a watershed based upon physical and biological 

characteristics and processes affecting hydrologic and soil functions (FSM 2521.05). 

Watershed condition framework – A framework established by the Forest Service that provides 

a new consistent, comparable, and credible process for improving the health of watersheds on 

national forests and grasslands. The framework includes a technical guide which provides 

protocol for assessing watershed condition across all 193 million acres of National Forest System 

lands (http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed).

Water quality – See Clean Water Act

Water yield – The total net amount of water produced including streamflow and groundwater 

recharge (Coconino NF forest plan glossary).

Wildland fire – A general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) – The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels. WUI areas are 
Glossary

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 355

spread across the project area and are located within or adjacent to the communities of Flagstaff 

(RU 1, 3, 4, 5), Williams (RU 3, 4), Tusayan (RU 6), Parks (RU 3, 4), Belmont (RU 3, 4), and 

scattered developments such as Doney Park (RU 5), Munds Park (RU 1), and Kachina Village 

(RU 3).

Woody debris – The dead and downed material on the forest floor consisting of fallen tree trunks 

and branches.

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 357

References

Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

Abella, S.R., and C.W. Denton. 2009. Spatial variation in reference conditions: Historical tree 

density and pattern on a Pinus ponderosa landscape. Canadian Journal of Forestry 

39:2391–2403. 

Aumack, E., T. Sisk, and J. Palumbo. 2007. Statewide strategy for restoring Arizona’s forests. 

Arizona Governor’s Forest Health Council. 140 pp.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30:129–164. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. 

Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 94(4):23–29. 

Greene, Heather. 2010. Coconino NF goshawk acreage. Personal Communication with Paula 

Cote, 4FRI. 

Pearson, G.A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the Southwest: As developed by research 

and experimental practice. Agriculture Monograph No. 6. USDA Forest Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. 34 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl: Vol. I. 

Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision (Strix 

occidentalis lucida). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM, USA. 414 pp. 

______. 2011. Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. pp. 178. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5334962.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

amendments. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 270 pp. Online: 

http://www.redrockcountry.org/about-us/fpr/current-forest-plan-w-amends.pdf. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050003.pdf. 

______. 2012. Kaibab National Forest Draft Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. pp. 196. Online: 

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/detail/kaibab/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB51

06605

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Woolsey, T.S. Jr. 1911. Western yellow pine in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, 

Bulletin 101. Washington, DC.
References

358 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Appendix D – Implementation Plan

Abella, Scott R. 2008a. Managing Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: the status 

of our knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 27 pp. Online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr218.pdf. 

Abella, Scott R. 2008b. Gambel oak growth forms: management opportunities for increasing 

ecosystem diversity. Res. Note RMRSRN-37. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 6pp. Online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn037.pdf. 

Abella, Scott R.; Springer, Judith D. 2008. Canopy-tree influences along a soil parent material 

gradient in Pinus ponderosa-Quercus gambelii forests, northern Arizona. Journal of the 

Torrey Botanical Society. 135:26–36. Online: 

http://faculty.unlv.edu/abellas2/files/Abella%202008%20canopytree%20influences%20in%20pine-oak%20forests%20JTBS.pdf. 

Abella, S.R., W.W. Covington, P.Z. Fulé, L.B. Lentile, A.J. Sánchez Meador, and P. Morgan. 

2007. Past, present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests of the western 

United States. Ecology and Society 12(2):16. Online: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art16. 

Bartos, D.L. 2001. Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. Pages 5–14 In: Shepperd, 

Wayne D.; Binkley, Dan; Bartos, Dale L.; Stohlgren, Thomas J.; and Eskew, Lane G., 

compilers. 2001. Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–

15 June 2000; Grand Junction, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 pp. 

Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p018/rmrs_p018_005_014.pdf. 

Bernardos, D.A., C.L. Chambers, and M.J. Rabe. 2004. Selection of Gambel oak roosts by 

Southwestern myotis in ponderosa pine-dominated forests, northern Arizona. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68(3):595–601. Online: 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2193/0022-

541X%282004%29068%5B0595%3ASOGORB%5D2.0.CO%3B2. 

Brown, D.E., and C.H. Lowe. 1982. Biotic communities of the Southwest (scale 1:1,000,000). 

General Technical Report RM-78, United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Reprinted and revised 1994 by University Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Online: 

http://sdfsnet.srnr.arizona.edu/data/alris/alris04/metadata/natveg.shp.html

Castelli, R.M., J.C. Chambers, and R.J. Tausch. 2000. Soil-plant relations along a soil-water 

gradient in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20(2):251–266. Online: 

http://images.water.nv.gov/images/Misc/spring%20valley%20hearings/USFWS/FWS2007.pdf. 

Chambers, C.L. 2002. Final Report: status and habitat use of oaks. Arizona Game and Fish 

Heritage Grant I98012. 52 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 359

Clary, W.P., and A.R. Tiedemann. 1992. Ecology and values of Gambel oak woodlands. Pages 

87–95 In P.F. Ffolliott, G.J. Gottfried, D.A. Bennett, V.M. Hernandex, C.A. OrtegaRubio, and R.H. Hamre, eds. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: 

perspectives in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. USDA Forest Service GTR 

RM-218. 

Coop, J.D., Thomas J. Givnish. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of recent forest encroachment 

in montane grasslands of the Valles Caldera, NM, USA. Journal of Biogeography 

34(5):914–927. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. 

Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 95:23–29. Online: 

http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/pinerestoration.htm. 

Covington, W.W., and Moore, M.M. 1992. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92(1):39–47. (Kaye et al. 1999). 

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed 

burning in ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 54:175–191. Online: 

http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_c/files/Covington_WW_Sackett_

SS_Soil_mineral_nitrogen_changes_following.pdf. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 21 pp. Online: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/. 

Di Orio, A.P., R. Callas, and R.J. Schaefer. 2005. Forty-eight year decline and fragmentation of 

aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the South Warner Mountains of California. Forest 

Ecology & Management 206: 307–313. Online: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811270400814X. 

Dwire, K.A., J.B. Kauffman, and J.E. Baham. 2006. Plant species distribution in relation to watertable depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian meadows. Wetlands 26(1): 131–

146. 

Fairweather, M.L., Geils, B.W., Manthei, M. 2008. Aspen decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. Pages 53–62 In: McWilliams, M.G., editor. Proceedings of the 55th Western 

International Forest Disease Work Conference, 2007 October 15–19, Sedona, AZ. Salem, 

OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008_fairweather_m001.pdf. 

Feth, H., and Hem, J.D.1963. Reconnaissance of headwater springs in the Gila River drainage 

basin. Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper I6I9-H. 54 p. 4 sheets, scales 

1:500,000, and 1:63,360. 

Finch, Deborah M., Editor. 2004. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the 

Southwestern United States. Volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135 Vol. 1. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 167 pp. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr135_2.pdf. 
References

360 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Ffolliott, Peter F., and Gerald J. Gottfried. 1991. Natural tree regeneration after clearcutting in 

Arizona’s ponderosa pine forests: two long-term case studies. Res. Note RM-507. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 6 pp. 

Fulé, Peter Z., Daniel C. Laughlin, and W. Wallace Covington. 2005. Pine-oak forest dynamics 

five years after ecological restoration treatments, AZ, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 218:129–145. Online: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112705004573. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for 

ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 

7: 895–908. Online: 

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/hash31bc.dir/doc.pdf. 

Gage, E., and D.J. Cooper. 2008. Historic range of variation assessment for wetland and riparian 

ecosystems, U.S. Forest Service Region 2. USDA Forest Service, Region 2, Golden, CO. 

Harper, K.T., F.J. Wagstaff, and L.M. Kunzler. 1985. Biology and management of the Gambel oak 

vegetative type: a literature review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT179. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT, USA.

Hendrickson, D.A., and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Ciénegas – vanishing climax communities of the 

American Southwest. Desert Plants 6:131–175. Online: 

www.rmrs.nau/publications/madrean/bibfiles/Riparian.doc. 

Jones, J.R. 1975. Regeneration on an aspen clearcut in Arizona. U.S. Forest Service Research 

Note RM-285, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Shepperd and Fairweather 1994: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr119/rm_gtr119_197_208.pdf. 

Judd, B.I. 1972. Vegetation zones around a small pond in the White Mountains of Arizona. Great 

Basin Naturalist 32(2):91–96. 

Kruse, William H. 1992. Quantifying wildlife habitats within Gambel oak/forest/woodland 

vegetation associations in Arizona. Pages 182–186. 

Larson, M.M. 1959. Regenerating aspen by suckering in the Southwest. Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experimental Station, Research Note 39, 2 pp. 

Long, J.W. 2002. Evaluating recovery of riparian wetlands on the White Mountain Apache 

Reservation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.

Long, J.W. 2000. Restoration of Gooseberry Creek. p. 356–358 In P.F. Ffolliott, M.B. Baker Jr., 

C.B. Edminster, B. Carleton, M.C. Dillon, and K.C. Mora (tech. eds.). Proceedings of 

land stewardship in the 21st Century: The contributions of watershed management. 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-13, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO, USA. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p013/rmrs_p013_356_358.pdf. 

Machinski, J. 2001. Impacts of ungulate herbivores on a rare willow at the southern edge of its 

range. Biological Conservation 101:119–130. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 361

Martin, E.C. 1965. Growth and change in structure of an aspen stand after a harvest cutting. Res. 

Note RM-45. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 2 pp.

Martin, T.E. 2007. Climate correlates of 20 years of trophic changes in a high-elevation riparian 

system. Ecology 88(2):367–380. Online: 

http://www.umt.edu/mcwru/personnel/martin/PDF%20Martin/Martin%202007%20Ecolo

gy%20Climate%20correlates.pdf. 

Medina, A.L., and J.E. Steed. 2002. West Fork Allotment riparian monitoring study 1993–1999. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Final Project Report Volume I. 

Moore, Margaret M., and D.W. Huffman. 2004. Tree Encroachment on meadows of the North 

Rim, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36 

(4):474–483. Online: 

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASHc37e.dir/doc.pdf. 

Muldavin, E., P. Durkin, M. Bradley, M. Stuever, and P. Mehlhop. 2000. Handbook of wetland 

vegetation communities of New Mexico, Volume I: Classification and community 

descriptions. New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, Biology Department, University of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Online: 

http://nhnm.unm.edu/vlibrary/pubs_archive/nhnm/nonsensitive/U00MUL01NMUS.pdf. 

Neary, D.G., and A.L. Medina. 1996. Geomorphic response of a montane riparian habitat to 

interaction of ungulates, vegetation, and hydrology. Pages 143–147 in Shaw, D.W., and 

D.M. Finch (tech. coords.), Desired future conditions for southwestern riparian 

ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr272/rm_gtr272_143_147.pdf. 

Neff, Don J., Clay Y. McCulloch, David E. Brown, Charles H. Lowe, and Janet F. Barstad. 1979. 

Forest, range, and watershed management for enhancement of wildlife habitat in Arizona. 

Special report no. 7. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 109 pp.

Onkonburi, Jeanmarie. 1999. Growth response of Gambel oak to thinning and burning: 

implications for ecological restoration. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 129

pp. Unpublished dissertation. 

Patton, D.R., and B.I. Judd. 1970. The role of wet meadows as wildlife habitat in the Southwest. 

Journal of Range Management 23(4):272–275. Online: 

http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/pdf/2047-2382-1-11.pdf. 

Pearson, G.A. 1942. Herbaceous vegetation a factor in natural regeneration of ponderosa pine in 

the Southwest. Ecological Monographs 12: 316–338. 

Pearson, G.A. 1914. The role of aspen in the reforestation of mountain burns in Arizona and New 

Mexico. Plant World 17: 249–260. 

Quinn, R.D., and L. Wu. 2001. Quaking Aspen Reproduce from Seed After Wildfire in the 

Mountains of Southeastern Arizona. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. 

Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p018/rmrs_p018_369_376.pdf. 
References

362 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Rosenstock, Steven S. 1998. Influence of Gambel oak on breeding birds in ponderosa pine forests 

of northern Arizona. Condor 100:485–492. Online at: 

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH0133.dir/doc.pdf. 

Sanchez-Meador, A.J., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, and P.F. Parysow. 2009. 108 years of change in 

spatial pattern following selective harvest of a Pinus ponderosa stand in northern Arizona, 

USA. Journal of Vegetation Science 20:79–90. Online: 

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbakker/publications/Sanchez.Meador.et.al.2009.pdf. 

Simonin, K., T.E. Kolb, M. Montes-Helu, and G.W. Koch. 2007. The Influence of Thinning on 

Components of Stand Water Balance in a Ponderosa Pine Forest During and After 

Extreme Drought. 11 pages in: ScientDirect. Agricultural and Meteorology. Volume 143 

(2007). 226–276. Online: 

http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_s/files/Simonin_K_Kolb_TE_Mo

ntes_Helu_M_etal_The_influence_of_thinning.pdf. 

Tew, R.K. 1970. Seasonal variation in the nutrient content of aspen foliage. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34(2):475–478. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Biotic Communities of the Southwest GIS layer. Online: 

http://azconservation.org/downloads/category/gis/. 

Thompson, Bruce C., Patricia L. Matusik-Rowan, and Kenneth G. Boykin. 2002. Prioritizing 

conservation potential of arid-land montane natural springs and associated riparian areas. 

Journal of Arid Environments 50:527–547. Online: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019630190922X. 

Tilman and Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and Stability in Grasslands in Nature. Volume 367. 

Pages 363–365. Online: 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6461/pdf/367363a0.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Plant associations of Arizona and New Mexico Volume 1: Forests. 

Edition 3 USDA Forest Service, SW Region Habitat Typing Guides. 291 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol. I. 

Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. Online: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/RecoveryPlans/MexicanSpottedOw

l.pdf. 

Wagstaff, E.J. 1984. Economic considerations in use and management of Gambel oak for 

firewood. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Range Experiment Station, GTR INT-165, 

Ogden, UT, USA.

Waltz, A.E.M., and W.W. Covington. 2004. Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly 

richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restoration Ecology 12:85–96. 

Online: http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASHf395.dir/doc.pdf. 

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 363

Appendix E – Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Block, W.M., Franklin, A.B., Ward, J.P.J., Ganey, J.L. & G.C. White, G.C. 2001. Design and 

Implementation of Monitoring Studies to Evaluate the Success of Ecological Restoration 

on Wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9: 293-303 

Busch, David, E., and Joel C. Trexler. 2003. Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches 

for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press. Washington, D.C. ISBN: 1559638516. 

384 pp. Online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800903003082. 

Lindenmayer, Gene E., and David B. Likens. 2010. A strategic plan for an Australian Long-Term 

Environmental Monitoring Network. Austral Ecology (2011) 36, 1–8. Online: 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2010.02179.x/pdf. 

Noon, B.R. 2003. Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological systems. Pages 27–71 in D.E. 

Busch and J.C. Trexler, eds. Monitoring ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for 

evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Public Law 111-11. Title IV. Section 4401 to 

4404. Online: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr146enr/pdf/BILLS111hr146enr.pdf. 

Palmer, C.J., and B.S. Mulder. 1999. Components of the Effectiveness Monitoring program. 

Chapter 4 (p. 69–97) In: The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program for the Northwest Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-437. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr437.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Overview. 1 

page. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/index.shtml/. Accessed on January 

13, 2013. 

Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

Adams, Judy. 2011. Personal communication with Paula Cote. WAPA Proposal for treating 1400-

foot KV Corridor within the 4FRI Project Area. October 20, 2011. 

Arizona State Forestry. 2012. Personal communication with Aaron Greene, Assistant Fire 

Management Officer. State and Private Lands Fuels and Vegetation Data for 2011. 

January 9, 2012. 

Brewer, D.G. 2011. Parker 3 Step analysis for 4FRI project area. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 

4FRI Project Record. 

Centennial West Clean Line, LLC. 2011. Project Introduction Sheet: Proposed Centennial West 

Clean Line Transmission Project. October 26, 2011. 7 pp. 

Covington, Wallace. 2003. The Context for Restoration. Page 40. 

Drake, W.M. 1910. A report on the Coconino National Forest. Unpublished report, Coconino 

National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.
References

364 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Fairweather M.L., K. Barton, B. Geils, and M. Manthei. 2008. Aspen Decline on the Coconino 

National Forest. In: McWilliams, M.G. comp 2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western 

International Forest Disease Work Conference; 2007 October 15–19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, 

OR; Oregon Department of Forestry. 

Flagstaff Fire Department. 2012. Foreseeable Fuels Reduction Treatments. Personal 

Communication with Paula Cote, 4FRI. February 24, 2012. 

Fleishman, Richard. 2012. Coconino Timber Sales First EIS Area Late 1960s to Early 1980s. 

Mormon Lake District, Coconino NF Timber Atlas. 

Fleishman, Richard. 2011. Final Revised Shelfstock Acres. April 24, 2011. 1 page. 

Fleishman, Richard. 2013. Transportation Specialist’s Report, Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forest. Cumulative Effects: pp 12–19. 

Friederici, P. 2004. Establishing reference condition for southwestern ponderosa pine forest. 

Working papers in southwestern ponderosa pine forest restoration. Ecological Restoration 

Institute. Flagstaff, AZ. 16 pp. 

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership. 2010. Annual Report. 2010. Online: 

http://www.gffp.org/docs/GFFP_2010_Annual_Report.pdf. 2 pages.

Gitlin, A.R., C.M. Sthultz, M.A. Bowker, S. Stumpf , K.L. Paxton, K. Kennedy, A. Muñoz, J.K. 

Bailey, and T.G. Whitham. 2006. Mortality gradients within and among dominant plant 

populations as barometers of ecosystem change during extreme drought. Conservation 

Biology 20:1477–1486. 

Hannemann, Mike. 2013. Range Specialist Report, Coconino and Kaibab Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative (4FRI), DEIS. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 44 pp. 

Hessburg, P.F., and J.S. Beatty. 1985. Incidence, severity, and growth losses associated with 

ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, R3-85-12, 30 pp. 

Homes, John. 2011. Personal communication with Paula Cote. South Kaibab Sale History. August 

18, 2011. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Lynch, A.M., J.H. Anhold, and J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M.L. 

Fairweather. 2008a. Forest insect and disease activity on the Coconino NF, 1918–2006. 

USDA Forest Service, Report for the Coconino NF/Regional Analysis Team. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_021382.pdf. 

Lynch, A.M., J.H. Anhold, and J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M.L. 

Fairweather. 2008b. Forest insect and disease activity on the Kaibab NF and Grand 

Canyon N.P., 1918–2006. USDA Forest Service, Draft Report for the Kaibab NF 

Regional Analysis Team. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_021515.pdf. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 365

MacDonald, Christopher D. 2013. Water Quality and Riparian Areas Specialist Report, FourForest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab National Forests: Cumulative Effects. 

Pages 51–88. 

McCusker, Neil. 2012. Coconino FACTS database queries run by 4FRI Silviculturist Neil 

McCusker. 3 pp. 

McCusker, Neil. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Silvicultural Specialist Report. Ms. On 

file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Mueller R.C., C.M. Scudder, M.E. Porter, R.T. Trotter, C.A. Gehring, and T.G. Whitham. 2005. 

Differential tree mortality in response to severe drought: evidence for long-term 

vegetation shifts. Journal of Ecology 93:1085–1093. 

Negrón, J.F., J.D. McMillin, J.A. Anhold, and D. Coulson. 2009. Bark beetle-caused mortality in 

a drought-affected ponderosa pine landscape in Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 257:1353–1362. 

Newbauer, Kim. 2012. Coconino Cut Volume by Fiscal Year: 1946 to 1989. 

Newbauer, Kim. 2012. Coconino Historic Sold Offered Volumes: 1999. 

Newbauer, Kim. 2012. Sale History: 1995. 

Rowe, Julie. 2012. Personal communication with Paula Cote and Henry Provencio. Acres of 

power, oil, and gas lines. March 27, 2012. 

Steinke, Rory. 2013. Soil Resources Specialist’s Report, 4 Forest Restoration Initiative: 

Cumulative Effects, pages 68–114. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

U.S. Department of Defense. 2012. Camp Navajo Army Depot. Camp Navajo Treatments. Bruce 

Buttrey. March 12, 2012. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Assessment of Grassland/Savannah Invasion by Trees on the 

Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest. Kaibab National Forest. October 30, 

2003, corrected January 19, 2005. 

_____. 2013. Coconino National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Accessed online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110304 on January 8, 2013. 

_____. 2012–1971. Coconino and Kaibab NF File Code 1950 NEPA Project Records. Ms. On file 

at the Coconino National Forest, 4FRI Project Record. 500 pp. 

_____. 2009. Coconino National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. September 2009. 

Coconino National Forest. Southwestern Region. 208 pp. 

_____. 2012. FACTS timber database query. Neil McCusker, 4FRI Silviculturist. Ms. On file at 

the Coconino National Forest, 4FRI Project Record. 3 pp. 

_____. 2000. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 1999. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-00-01: 17 pp. Albuquerque, NM.

_____. 2011. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2010. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health, PR-R3-16-7, 45 pp. 

Albuquerque, NM. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5316384.pdf. 
References

366 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

_____.2008. Kaibab National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. Ms. On File at the 

Coconino National Forest, 4FRI Project Record. Kaibab National Forest. Southwestern 

Region. 104 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050014.pdf. 

_____. 2013. Kaibab National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110307. Accessed on January 8, 2013. 

_____. 2004. News release: Crews To Begin Tree Removal on Private Property Next Month. 

Kaibab National Forest Newsroom. August 30, 2004. 

_____. 2011. Proposed Action for Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab 

National Forests, Coconino County, Arizona. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino 

and Kaibab National Forests Proposed Action. Ms. On file at the Coconino National 

Forest, 4FRI Project Record. 127 pp. 

_____. 2005. Socio-Economic Assessment for the Kaibab National Forest. Prepared for the 

Southwest Region. The University of Arizona School of Natural Resources. 145 pp. 

Walton, Colby. 2012. Tusayan Wildlife Waters. Arizona Department of Game and Fish Personal 

communication with Paula Cote, 4FRI. January 31, 2012. 

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

Hampton, H.M., S.E. Sesnie, B.G. Dickson, J.M. Rundall, T.D. Sisk, G.B. Snider, and J.D. 

Bailey. 2008. Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona. Forest 

Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Project, Center for Environmental Sciences and 

Education, Northern Arizona University. 210 pp. 

Aquatics 

Abella, S.R. 2008. Managing Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: The status of 

our knowledge. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-218. 

Abella, S.R., and J.D. Springer. 2008. Estimating soil seed bank characteristics in ponderosa pine 

forests using vegetation and forest-floor data. Research Note RMRS-RN-35. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 7 pp. 

Abella, S.R., and P.Z. Fulé. 2008. Changes in Gambel oak densities in southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests since Euro-American settlement. Research Note RMRS-RN-36. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

ADEQ. 2005. A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality. Phoenix, AZ. 335 pp. 

ADEQ and USDA. 2008. Intergovernmental agreement between the State of Arizona and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern Region. February 15, 2008. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 367

Agee, J.K., and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management 211:83–96. 

Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Shulke, P.B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M.T. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern 

Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications 12(5):1418–

1433. 

Anderson, P.G. 1996. Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on 

aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management 

Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, Calgary, Alberta.

Anderson, B.G. 1950. The apparent thresholds of toxicity of Daphnia magna for chlorides of 

various metals when added to Lake Eerie water. American Fisheries Society 78:96–113. 

Argent, D.G., and P.A. Flebbe. 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory 

streams. Fisheries Research 39:253–262. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2002a. Desert sucker Catostomus (= Pantosteus) clarki. 

Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

_____. 2002b. Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by 

the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, 

AZ. 5 pp. 

_____. 2006. Longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster chrysogaster. Unpublished abstract compiled 

and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

Barber W.E., D.C. Williams, and W.L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila spikedace, Meda 

fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970:9–18. 

Benedict, C. 2011. [Letter to M. R. Childs]. December 6. 7 attachments. On file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371–374. 

Bisson, P.A., B.E. Rieman, C.H. Luce, P.F. Hessberg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Kershner, G.H. Reeves, and 

R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems of the Western USA: Current 

Knowledge and Key Questions. Forest Ecology and Management. 

Childs, M. 2010. USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Red Rock Ranger Station. 

Sedona, AZ.

_____. 2013. Fisheries Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration Initiative. 103 pp. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30(2): 129–164. 

Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annual Review of Entomology 

18:183–206. 
References

368 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Diggins, Corinne A. 2010. Modeling Forest Change, Bird Communities, and Management 

Alternatives on a Restored Ponderosa Pine Forest. Master’s Thesis. Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Earl, S.R., and D.W. Blinn. 2003. Effects of wildfire ash on water chemistry and biota in 

Southwestern U.S.A. streams. Freshwater Biology 48:1015–1030.

Elliot, William J., Ina Sue Miller, and Lisa Audin, eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 299 pp.

Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and Watershed Systems: Degradation and 

Restoration. Pages 212–231 In: Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the 

West. M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Piper, eds. Society for Range Management, 

Denver, CO.

Fairweather, M., B. Geils, B., and M. Manthei 2008. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. In: McWilliams, M.G. comp 2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western International 

Forest Disease Work Conference; 2007 October 15–19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, OR; Oregon 

Department of Forestry.

Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B. 

Lindenmayer, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of 

natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an 

example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399–423. 

Fulé, P.Z., T.A. Heinlein, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2003. Assessing fire regimes on 

Grand Canyon landscapes with fire-scar and fire-record data. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 12: 129–145. 

Girmendonk, A.L., and K.L. Young. 1997. Status Review of the Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) in 

the Verde River Basin. Technical Report 114. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 95 pp. 

Gregory, S.V., G.A. Lamberti, D.C. Erman, K.V. Koski, M.L. Murphy, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. 

Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. Pages 233–255 in E.O. Salo and T.W. 

Cundy (eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contr. No. 57, 

Inst. Forest Resources, Univ. Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. Mckee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An Ecosystem Perspective 

of Riparian Zones. Bioscience 41: 540–551. 

Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havalina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T.D. Meo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. 

Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook Version 1.3.0. Last update, June 2008. Online:

www.frcc.gov. 

Heinlein, T.A., M.M. Moore, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington, 2005. Fire history and stand 

structure of two ponderosa pine – mixed conifer sites: San Francisco Peaks, AZ, USA. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 307–320. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 369

Hessberg, P.F., and J.S. Beatty. 1985. Incidences, Severity and Growth Losses Associated with 

Ponderosa Pine Dwarf Mistletoe on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. R3-85-12. 30 pp. 

Johnson, E.A, K. Miyanishi, J.M.H. Weir. 1998. Wildfires in Western Canadian Boreal Forest: 

Landscape Management and Ecological Patterns. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9:603–

610. 

Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of 

riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 22:12–24. 

Kruse, William H. 1992. Quantifying Wildlife Habitats within Gambel Oak/Forest/Woodland 

Associations in Arizona. In: Ecology and Management of Oaks and Associated 

Woodlands: Perspectives in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. Pp. 

182–186. Peter F. Ffolliott, G.J. Gottfried, D.A. Bennett, C. Hernandez, V. Manuel, A. 

Ortega-Rubio, and H.R. Hamre, tech coords. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record.

Laughlin, D.C., and S.R. Abella. 2007. Abiotic and biotic factors explain independent gradients of 

plant community composition in ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Modeling 205:231–

240. 

Lawson, L.L., ed. 2005. Macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis procedures, Section 3, Part A, 

in a Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, TM05-01. Phoenix, AZ.

Lertzman, K., J. Fall, and B. Dorner. 1998. Three Kinds of Heterogeneity in Fire Regimes: At the 

Crossroads of Fire History and Landscape Ecology. Northwest Science 72:4–23. 

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal 

California. Water Resources Research 25:1303–1319. 

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle 61:23–27. 

Lynch, Ann M., J.A. Anhold, J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M. Fairweather. 

2008. Forest Insect and Disease Activity on the Coconino National Forest 1918–2006. 

Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.

MacDonald, Christorpher. D. 2011. Soil and Watershed Specialist’s Report for the Kaibab 

National Forest Plan Revision. 135 pp. 

_____. 2013. Water Quality and Riparian Areas Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI 

Project Record. Pp. 185. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2008. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. 

Incident Operations Standards Working Team. Online: http://www.nwcg.gov. Accessed 

January 4, 2010. 

Neff, D.J., and N.W. Woolsey. 1979. Effects of Predation by Coyotes on Antelope Fawn Survival 

on Anderson Mesa, AZ. Special Report 8. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 36 pp. 
References

370 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Pearson, G.A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the Southwest: As developed by research 

and experimental practice. Agriculture Monograph No. 6. USDA Forest Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. 34 pp. 

Piechota, T., J. van Ee, J. Batista, K. Stave, and D. James, eds. 2004. Potential environmental 

impacts of dust suppressants: “Avoiding Another Times Beach.” An expert panel 

summary. Las Vegas, Nevada, May 30–31, 2002. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 97 pp. 

Propst, D.L. and K.R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, 

in New Mexico. Copeia 1991, 29–38. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, 

R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region. 

General Technical Report RM-217, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Rinker, M. 2004. Arizona Game and Fish Department West Clear Creek Trip Report: 2004 Fish 

Sampling, July 26 & 27. 2004. 6 pp. 

Rinker, M. 2007. Arizona Game and Fish Department Oak Creek Trip Report: 2007 Fish 

Sampling, July/August 2007. 23 pp. 

Rinker, M. 2010. Arizona Game and Fish Department West Fork Oak Creek Fish Sampling 

Report: 2010 Fish Sampling. 10 pp. 

Rinne, J.N., and D. Miller. 2006. Hydrology, geomorphology and management: Implications for 

sustainability of native Southwestern fishes. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 91–110. 

Roccaforte, J.P., P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington. 2008. Landscape-scale changes in canopy fuels 

and potential fire behavior following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 17(2):293–303. 

Rosenstock, S.S. 1998. Influence of Gambel oak on breeding birds in northern Arizona. Condor 

100:485–492. 

Sanders, T.G., and J.Q. Addo. 1993. Effectiveness and environmental impact of road dust 

suppressants. Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University. Ft. Collins, 

CO. 39 pp. 

Steinke, R. 2013. Soil Resources Specialist’s Report, 4 Forest Restoration Initiative. On file at the 

Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ. 425 pp. 

Swank, W.T., L.F. DeBano, and D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil 

and water. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep WO-55: 79–106. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. In: 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium; Los Alamos, NM. Pp 11-32. C. 

D. Allen, ed. General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp. 

Truebe, M., and G. Evans. 1994. Lowell surfacing thickness design test road: Final report. 

Federal Highway Forest Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. San 

Dimas, CA. 108 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 371

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

amendments. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 270 pp. Online: 

http://www.redrockcountry.org/about-us/fpr/current-forest-plan-w-amends.pdf. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050003.pdf. 

______. 2008. Kaibab National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. Ms. On File at the 

Coconino National Forest, 4FRI Project Record. Kaibab National Forest. Southwestern 

Region. 104 pages. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050014.pdf. 

______. 2009. Coconino National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. September 2009. 

Coconino National Forest. Southwestern Region. 208 pages.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native fish and wildlife; endangered species. Federal 

Register, 32:4001. 

______. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of experimental 

population status for certain introduced populations of the Colorado squawfish and 

woundfin. Federal Register 50(142):30188–30195. 

______. 1986a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status 

for the loach minnow. Federal Register 51(208):39468–39478. 

______. 1986b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status 

for the spikedace. Federal Register 51(126):23769–23781 

______. 1991a. Loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, recovery plan. Prepared by P.C. Marsh, Arizona 

State University, Tempe, AZ, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 45 

pp. 

______. 1991b. Spikedace, Meda fulgida, recovery plan. Prepared by P.C. Marsh, Arizona State 

University, Tempe, AZ, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 45 pp. 

______. 2002a. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: Amendment and 

Supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado. 111 pp.

______. 2002b. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: Amendment and 

Supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado. 113 pp.

______. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to 

list a distinct population segment of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River 

Basin and to list the headwater chub as endangered or threatened with critical habitat. 

Federal Register 71, 85, 26007–26017. 

______. 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for 

the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis); Final Rule. Federal 

Register 72, 54, 13356–13422. 
References

372 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

______. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to 

list a distinct population segment of the roundtail chub in the Lower Colorado River 

Basin. Federal Register 74, 128, 32351–32387. 

______. 2011. Sport Fish Stocking Program. Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared by 

EcoPlan Associates, Inc., for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. 602 pp. 

______. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status and designations 

of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow; Final Rule. Federal Register 77, 36, 

10809–10932. 

Van Wagner, C.E. 1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Resource 3:373–378. 

______. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of a crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 71(3):23–30. 

Voshell, J.R. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America. The 

McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia Wood, P.J., and 

P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. 

Environmental Management 21:203–217. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an Ecological factor in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of 

Forestry. 49: 93–98. 

Weedman, Dave. 2011. (File to M. R. Childs). December 23. 1 file. On file at: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, 

AZ.

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Wood, P.J., and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. 

Environmental Management 21: 203–217. 

Ziemer, R.R., J. Lewis, T.E. Lisle, and R.M. Rice. 1991. Long-term sedimentation effects of 

different patterns of timber harvesting. Pages 143–150. In: Sediment and Stream Water 

Quality in a Changing Environment: Trends and Explanation. IAHS, Vienna, Austria.

Chapter 1 and 2 References (see those sections):

• USDA 1987, as amended 

• USDA 1988, as amended 

• USDA 2009a 

• USDA 2009b 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 373

Botany

Abella, S.R., W.W. Covington, P.Z. Fulé, L.B. Lentile, A.J. Sánchez Meador, and P. Morgan. 

2007. Past, present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests of the western 

United States. Ecology and Society 12(2): 16. Online: http://www. ecologyandsociety. 

org/vol12/iss2/art16/. 

Abella, S.R., E. Cayenne Engel, Judith D. Springer and W. Wallace Covington. 2012. 

Relationships if exotic plant communities with native vegetation environment factors, 

disturbance and landscape ecosystems of Pinus ponderosa forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. Vol. 271. Pages 65–74.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima. Unpublished 

abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

_____. 2002. Rumex orthoneurus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

_____. 2012. Actaea arizonica. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

Bakker, Jonathan D., and Margaret M. Moore. 2007. Controls on Vegetation Structure in 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests, 1941 and 2004. Ecology 88(9):2305–2319. 

Ballard, T.M. 2000. Impacts of forest management on northern forest soils. Forest Ecology and 

Management 133:37–42. 

Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Memoirs of The New York Botanical 

Garden.Vol.13. Pages 1–1188. 

Bataineh, Amanda L., Brian P. Oswald, Mohammad M. Bataineh, Hans M. Williams, and Dean 

W. Coble. 2006. Changes in understory vegetation of a ponderosa pine forest in northern 

Arizona 30 years after a wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management 235:283–294. 

Beck, K. George. Biennial thistles. 1999. In: Biology and Management for Noxious Rangeland 

Weeds. Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. Petroff, eds. Oregon State University Press. Pages 

145–161. 

Boucher, Paul F. 1984. Management Plan for Hedeoma diffusum Greene, Elden, Flagstaff, 

Mormon Lake, and Sedona Ranger Districts. USDA Forest Service, Coconino National 

Forest. Unpublished document on file at Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 5 pp. 

Bradley, B.A., D.M. Blumenthal, D.S. Wilcove, and L.H. Ziska. 2010. Predicting plant invasions 

in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:310–318. 

Choromanska, U., and T.H. DeLuca. 2002. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in 

forest mineral soils following heating: evaluation of post fire effects. Soil Biology and 

Chemistry 34: 263–271. 

Clark, J.S., E.C. Grimm, J.J. Donovan, S.C. Fritz, D.R. Engstrom and J.E. Almendinger. 2002. 

Drought cycles and landscape responses to past aridity on prairies of the northern great 

plains, USA. Ecology. Vol. 83(3). Pages 595–601. 
References

374 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Collins, Barndon M., Jason J. Moghaddas, and Scott L. Stevens. 2007. Initial changes in forest 

structure and understory plant communities following fuel reduction activities in a Sierra 

Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Management and Ecology. Pages 102–111.

Covington, W.E. 2000. Helping western forests heal. Nature 208:135–136. 

Crane, M.F. 1990. Actaea rubra. In: Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed January 3, 2012.

Crawford, Julie A, C.H.A. Wahren, S. Kyle and W.H. Moir, 2001. Responses of exotic plant 

species to fires in Pinus ponderosa forests in northern Arizona. Journal of Vegetation 

Science. Pages 261–268. 

Crisp, Debra L. 1996. Monitoring of Penstemon clutei A. Nels on Tornado Salvage. Pages 243–

246. In Maschinski, J.H. David Hammond and L. Holter (Eds.) Southwestern Rare and 

Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Second Conference. Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings 

RMRS-GTR-283. 328 pp. 

_____. 1997. Prescribed Fire Effects on Flagstaff pennyroyal, Hedeoma diffusum. An independent 

study for Northern Arizona University. 26 pp. 

_____. 2004. Survival and recruitment of bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore) after pile 

burning and litter removal. Master of Science thesis. Northern Arizona University. 87 

pages.

_____. 2005. Hedeoma diffusum monitoring plots. Unpublished report on file at the Coconino 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 7 pp. 

_____. 2013. Botany Specialist’s Report. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and 

Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Fulé, Pete Z., Judy D. Springer, David G. Huffman, and Wallace W. Covington. 2000. Response 

of a rare endemic, Penstemon clutei, to burning and reduced belowground competition. 

Pages 139–152. In: Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third 

Conference. J. Maschinski and L. Holter, eds. Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-23. 

248 pp. 

Goodwin, Greg. 1979. Observations on Penstemon clutei on the Coconino National Forest. 

Unpublished report on file at Supervisor’s Office, Coconino National Forest. 7 pp. 

_____. 1983. Proposed Thomas and Walnut Timber Sales, Mormon Lake District, Coconino 

National Forest, Survey Results and Interim Management Guidelines for Hedeoma 

diffusum Greene. Unpublished document on file at Coconino national Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 17 pp. 

Greishop, Matthew J., and Robert M. Nowierski. 2002. Selected factors affecting seedling 

recruitment of Dalmatian toadflax. Journal of Range Management 55:612–619. 

Hellmann J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534–543. 

Hulbert, Lloyd C. 1995. Ecological Studies of Bromus tectorum and Other Annual Bromegrasses. 

Ecological Monographs 25(2):181–213. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 375

Jacobs, James S., and Roger L. Sheley. 2003. Prescribed fire effects on Dalmatian toadflax. 

Journal of Range Management 56:193–197. 

Jeong, Su-Jung, Chang-Hoi Ho, Hyeon-Ju Gim, and Molly E. Brown. 2011. Phenology shifts at 

start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for 

the period 1982–2008. Global Change Biology 17:2385–2399. 

Lajeunesse, Sherry. 1999. Dalmatian and yellow toadflax. In: Biology and management of 

noxious rangeland weeds. Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. Petroff, eds. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press: 202–216. 

Laughlin, Daniel C., Jonathan D. Bakker, Mark L. Daniels, Margaret M. Moore, Cheryl A. Casey, 

and Judith D. Springer. 2008. Restoring plant species diversity and community 

composition in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Plant Ecology 197:139–151. 

Laughlin, Daniel C., Margaret M. Moore, and Peter Z. Fulé. 2011. A century of increasing pine 

density and associated shifts in understory plant strategies. Ecology 92(3):556–561. 

Kaye, Jason P., and Stephen C. Hart, 1998. Ecological Restoration Alters Nitrogen 

Transformations in a Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass Ecosystem. Ecological Applications 

8(4):1052–1060. 

Korb, Julie E. 2001. Understory plant community dynamics in southwestern ponderosa pine 

forest restoration. PhD Dissertation. Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, AZ. 120 pp. 

Korb, Julie E., Nancy C. Johnson, and W. Wallace. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on 

soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: recommendations for 

amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12:52–62. 

Makarick, Lori. 2012. 2012 Priority Invasives GCNP. Excel spreadsheet-showing list of nonnative plants targeted for treatment within the Grand Canyon National Park with graph 

showing increase in the number of species over time.

Marlon, J.R., P.J. Bartlein, M.K. Walsh, S.P. Harrison, K.J. Brown, and M.E. Edwards. 2009 

Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:2519–2524. 

Maschinski, Joyce and Thomas J. Whitham. 1989. The Continuum of Plant Responses to 

Herbivory: The Influence of Plant Association, Nutrient Availability, and Timing. The 

American Naturalist, Vol. 134 (1). Pages 1–19.

Maschinski, Joyce, Thomas E. Kolb, Edward Smith, and Barbara Phillips. 1997. Potential 

impacts of timber harvesting on a rare understory plant, Clematis hirsutissima var. 

arizonica. Biological Conservation 80:49–61. 

Middleton, B.A. 2006. Invasive species and climate change: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report: 2006–1153. 2 pp.

McGlone, C.M., and D. Egan. 2009. Role of Fie in the Establishment and Spread of Nonnative 

Plants in Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests: A Review. Journal of the Arizona –Nevada 

Academy of Science 41(2). Pages 75–86. 
References

376 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

McGlone, Christopher M., Judith D. Springer, and Daniel C. Laughlin. 2009. Can pine forest 

restoration promote a diverse and abundant understory and simultaneously resist nonnative invasion? Forest Ecology and Management 258:2638–2646. 

McGlone, Christopher M., Judith D. Springer, and W. Wallace Covington. 2009. Cheatgrass 

Encroachment on a Ponderosa Pine Forest Ecological Restoration Project in Northern 

Arizona. Ecological Restoration 27(1):37–46.

McKenney, Daniel W., John H. Pedlar, Keven Lawrence, Kathy Campbell, and Michael F. 

Hutchison. 2007. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Distribution of North 

American Trees. Bioscience 57(11):939–948. 

Moore, Margaret M., Cheryl A. Casey, Jonathan D. Bakker, Judith D. Springer, Peter Z. Fulé, W. 

Wallace Covington, and Daniel C. Laughlin. 2006. Herbaceous Vegetation Responses 

(1992–2004) to Restoration Treatments in a Ponderosa Pine Forest. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management 59:135–144. 

Morecroft, M.D., G.H. Masters, V.K. Brown, J.P. Clark, M.E. Taylor, and A.T. Whitehouse. 2004. 

Changing precipitation patterns alter plant community dynamics and succession in an exarable grassland. Functional Ecology 18:648–655. 

Parmesan, Camille. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. 

Annual Review of Ecology, and Evolution and Systematics 37:637–669. 

Pierson, Elizabeth A., and Richard N. Mack. 1990a. The Population Biology of Bromus tectorum

in Forests: Distinguishing the Opportunity for Dispersal from Environmental Restriction. 

Oecologia 84:519–525. 

_____. 1990b. The population biology of Bromus tectorum in forests: effect of disturbance, 

grazing, and litter on seedling establishment and reproduction. Oecologia 84:526–533. 

Phillips, Arthur M. III, Mimi Murov, and Ron van Ommeren. 1992. Unpublished final report, 

distribution, and ecology of Sunset Crater Beardtongue (Penstemon clutei) in the Cinder 

Hills area, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona for Coconino National Forest. 

Phillips, Barbara G. 1984. Unpublished final report, Field survey for Hedeoma diffusum, 

Coconino National Forest. 24 pp. 

Priest, Susan S., Wendell A. Duffield, Karen Malis-Clark, James W. Hendley II, and Peter H. 

Stauffer. 2001. The San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona. USGS Fact Sheet 017-01. 2 

pp. 

Pringle, James S. 1997. Clematis. In: Volume 3, Flora of North America. Flora of North America 

Editorial Committee, ed. Oxford University Press. Pages 158–159. 

Pyke, David A., Matthew L. Brooks, and Carla D’ Antonio. 2010. Fire as a Restoration Tool: A 

Decision Framework for Predicting the Control or Enhancement of Plants Using Fire. 

Restoration Ecology. Vol. 18. Pages 274–284. 

Raison, R.J. 1979. Modification of the soil environment by vegetation fires, with particular 

reference to nitrogen transformations review. Plant and Soil 51: 73–108. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 377

Roche, Cindy Talbott, and Linda M. Wilson. 1999. Mediterranean sage. In: Biology and 

Management for Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. Petroff, eds. 

Oregon State University Press. Pages 261–270. 

Root, Terry L., Jeff T. Price, Kimberly. R. Hall, Stephen H. Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweig, and 

J. Alan Pounds. 2003: Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. In; 

Nature. Vol. 421. Pages 57–60. 

Sheley, Roger L., James S. Jacobs, and Michael L. Carpinelli. 1999. Spotted knapweed. In: 

Biology and Management for Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. 

Petroff, eds. Oregon State University Press. Pages 350–361. 

Tesky, Julie L. 1992. Salix bebbiana. In: Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. Accessed May 15, 2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Noxious Weeds Strategic Plan Working Guidelines, Coconino, 

Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests. Unpublished document in file at Coconino 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

USDA Forest Service. Coconino National Forest. 1998. Environmental Assessment for the 

Treatment of Leafy Spurge at Brolliar Park. 56 pp. 

_____. 2000. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Leafy Spurge Management 

Area Environmental Assessment. 7 pp. 

_____. 2009. Leafy Spurge Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest. 24 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. 1995. Arizona bugbane 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy, 66 pp. Unpublished document in file at Coconino 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott 

National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, AZ. 613 pp.

_____. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning, A Guide for 

Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National Forests 

and National Grasslands.

USDA. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 58 Federal Register 51144. September 30, 1993. Part IV 

Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Plant Taxa for 

Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review.

_____. 1999. Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 152 Monday, August 9, 1999 Proposed Rules. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List the 

Plant Rumex orthoneurus (Chiricahua Dock) as Threatened. 6 pp. 

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service. 1998. Arizona Bugbane Conservation 

Agreement. 15 pages.

Whitson, Tom O. 1999. Russian Knapweed. In: Biology and Management for Noxious Rangeland 

Weeds. Roger L. Sheley and Janet K. Petroff, eds. Oregon State University Press. Pages 

315–322. 
References

378 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Wolfson, B.A.S., T.E. Kolb, C.H. Sieg, K.M. Clancy. 2005. Effects of post-fire conditions on 

germination and seedling success of diffuse knapweed in northern Arizona. Forest 

Ecology and Management 216:342–358. 

Young, Jim. 2000. Bromus tectorum. In: Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. Carla M. 

Bossard, John M. Randall, and Marc. C. Hoshovsky, eds. University of California Press. 

Pages 76–80. 

Zouhar, Kris. 2001. Centaurea diffusa. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed 

February 16, 2012. 

______. 2001. Centaurea maculosa. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed 

February 16, 2012. 

______. 2002. Carduus nutans. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed February 17, 2012. 

______. 2003. Tamarix spp. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed February 22, 2012. 

______. 2003. Linaria spp. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed February 23, 2012. 

______, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed 

March 1, 2012. 

______. 2004. Cardaria spp. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ Accessed February 16, 2012. 

Climate Change

Crisp, Deborah. 2013. Botany Specialist’s Report. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino 

and Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Hannemann, Michael. 2013. Range Specialist Report, Coconino and Kaibab Four-Forest

Restoration Initiative (4FRI), DEIS. Ms. on file at the Coconino National Forest. 

Flagstaff, AZ. Pages 25–40. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record.
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 379

MacDonald, Christopher. 2013. Water Quality and Riparian Areas Specialist Report, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino 

NF 4FRI Project Record. 185 pp. 

Minor, Charlotte. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Recreation Specialist Report. On file at 

the Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff. 92 pp.

McCusker, Neil. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National Forests 

Silviculture Specialist Report. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Neary, Daniel G, Steven T. Overby, and Stephen C. Hart. 2002. Soil carbon in arid and semiarid 

forest ecosystems. In: Kimble, J.M., Linda S. Heath, Richard A. Birdsey, and R. Lal, eds. 

The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. 

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 293–310. Online:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2002_neary_d004.pdf. Accessed December 6, 

2012. 

Noble, William, et al. 2013. Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab NF Environmental Impact Statement and 

Biological Evaluation. Pages 169–174. 

Steinke, R. 2013. Soil Resources Specialist’s Report, 4 Forest Restoration Initiative. Ms. On file 

at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 425 pp.

USDA Forest Service. Kaibab National Forest. Appendix D. Kaibab National Forest’s Climate 

Change Approach for Plan Revision. 2012. Draft Land and Resource Management Plan 

for the Kaibab National Forest. Pages 173–182. 

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region.2010. Southwestern Climate Change Trends and 

Forest Planning, A Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for 

Southwestern National Forests and National Grasslands. 46 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. Washington Office. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level 

NEPA Analysis. 11 pp. 

DEIS Chapter 1

Arizona Forest Health Council. 2007. Statewide Strategy to Restore Arizona’s Forests. Statewide 

Strategy Subcommittee of the Governor’s Forest Health Oversight Council. 160 pp. 

Online: http://www.azsf.az.gov/userfiles/file/07-07-

25%20Forest%20Executive%20Summary.pdf. 

Council of Environmental Quality. 1978. Regulations for Implementing NEPA. 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 1502.14 (c). Online: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm#1502.14. Accessed for filing purposes on 

January 13, 2013. 

Federal Register. 2011. Vol. 76 FR. 51936–51938, 4279–4281, 2011–20496. 

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Stakeholders. 2010. Four Forest Initiative Landscape 

Restoration Strategy Report, First Analysis Area. October 1, 2010. 

_____. 2011. Old Growth Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy (OGP and LTRS). 

September 13, 2011. 34 pp. 
References

380 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Hampton, H.M., S.E. Sesnie, B.G. Dickson, J.M. Rundall, T.D. Sisk, G.B. Snider, and J.D. 

Bailey. 2008. Final Report. Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern 

Arizona. Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Project, Center for Environmental 

Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University. 210 pp. 

Keckler, Chirre. Acres of goshawk habitat on the Kaibab NF. Personal communication with Paula 

Cote, 4FRI. January 9, 2012. 

Public Law 111-11. 2009. Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Title IV—Forest 

Landscape Restoration. 8 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/titleIV.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

amendments. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 270 pp. Online: 

http://www.redrockcountry.org/about-us/fpr/current-forest-plan-w-amends.pdf. 

_____. 2012–2011. Forest Service Handbook 1909.14.1. Adaptive Management Strategy. Page 32 

to Page 35. 47 pages. 

_____. 2012. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2020.5 – Definitions. Ecological Restoration and 

Resilience. 2020.5. Page 12 of 12. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050003.pdf. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision (Strix 

occidentalis lucida). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM, USA. 414 pp. 

DEIS Chapter 1 References Located in Other Reports

• Chapter 1 Tree Density and Canopy Openness – see Silviculture References 

• Chapter 1 Stand Density and Key Habitat Components – see Silviculture References

• Chapter 1 Vegetation Diversity and Composition –see Wildlife References

• Chapter 1 Aspen –see Silviculture and Cumulative Effects References

• Chapter 1 Grasslands – see Cumulative Effects and Fire Ecology References

• Chapter 1 Forest Resiliency (Fire) – See Fire Ecology References

• Chapter 1 Soils Productivity, Watershed Function, Springs, Ephemeral Streams, and 

Roads and Unauthorized Routes – See Soils and Watershed and Cumulative Effects 

References

DEIS Chapter 2 References

Battaglia, M., F.W. Smith, and W.D. Shepperd. 2009. Predicting mortality of ponderosa pine 

regeneration after prescribed fire in the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 381

Council of Environmental Quality. 1978. Regulations for Implementing NEPA. 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 1502.14 (c). Online: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm#1502.14. Accessed for filing purposes on 

January 13, 2013. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, S.C. Hart, and R.P. Weaver. 2001. Modeling ecological restoration 

effects on ponderosa pine forest structure. Restoration Ecology 9(4):421–431. 

Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2020.5 – Definitions. Ecological Restoration and Resilience. 

2020.5. Page 12 of 12. 

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Stakeholders. 2011. Old Growth Protection and Large Tree 

Retention Strategy (OGP and LTRS). September 13, 2011. 34 pp. 

Hood, Sharon M. 2010. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, fire dependent forests: a 

synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 71 pp.

Huffman, D.W., and M.M. Moore. 2008. Population dynamics of buckbrush under simulated 

forest restoration alternatives. Pp. 257–263 in Susan D. Olberding and Margaret M.

Moore, (tech coords.) 2008. Fort Valley Experimental Forest–A Century of Research 

1908–2008. Conference Proceedings; August 7–9, 2008; Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-53CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 408 pp. 

Kolb, T.E., J.K. Agee, P.Z. Fulé, N.G. McDowell, K. Pearson, A. Sala, and R.H. Waring. 2007. 

Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 249:141–157. 

Miller, C., and D.L. Urban. 2000. Connectivity of forest fuels and surface fire regimes. 

Landscape Ecology. 15:145 – 154. 

Miller, E.M. and T.R. Seastedt. 2009. Impacts of woodchip amendments and soil nutrient 

availability on understory vegetation establishment following thinning of a ponderosa 

pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 263–272. 

Moir, W.H. and J.H. Deiterich. 1988. Old-Growth ponderosa pine from succession in pinebunchgrass forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Natural Areas Journal 8(1):17–24.

Savage, M., and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after 

crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 35:967–977. 

Triepke, F.J., B.J. Higgins, R.N. Weisz, J.A. Youtz, and T. Nicolet. 2011. Diameter caps and forest 

restoration – Evaluation of a 16-inch cut limit on achieving desired conditions. USDA 

Forest Service Forestry Report FR-R3-16-3. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. 31 pp. 

Fire Ecology 

Abella, S.R. 2006. Effects of smoke and fire-related cues on Penstemon barbatus seeds. Faculty 

Publications (SEPA); School of Environmental & Public Affairs, University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

______. 2008a. Managing Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: The Status of our 

knowledge. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-218. 
References

382 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

______ . 2008b. Gambel oak growth forms: Management opportunities for increasing ecosystem 

diversity (2008). Faculty Publications (SEPA). Paper 348. 

http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/sea_fac_articles/348. 

______. 2009. Smoke-cued emergence in Plant Species of Ponderosa Pine Forests: Contrasting 

Greenhouse and Field Results. Fire Ecology Special Issue 5(1):22–37.

Abella, S.R., and P.Z. Fulé. 2008. Fire effects on Gambel Oak in southwestern Ponderosa pineoak forests. Research Note RMRS-RN-34. 

______ . 2008a. Changes in Gambel oak densities in southwestern ponderosa pine forests since 

Euro-American settlement. Faculty Publications (SEPA). Paper 354. 

http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/sea_fac_articles/354. 

Abella, S.R., C.W. Denton, C.W., D.G. Brewer, W.A. Robbie, R.W. Steinke, W.W. Covington. 

2011. Using a terrestrial ecosystem survey to estimate the historical density of ponderosa 

pine trees. Res. Note. RMRS-RN-45. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9 pp. 

Abella, S.R., J.D. Springer, and W.W. Covington. 2007. Seed banks of Arizona Pinus ponderosa 

landscape: responses to environmental gradients and fire cues. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 37:552 – 567. 

Achtemeier, G.L., B. Jackson, J.D. Brenner, 2001. Problem and Nuisance Smoke. Smoke 

Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, 

NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Alexander, M.E. 1982. Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of 

Botany. Vol. 60.

Alexander, M.E., and F.G. Hawksworth. 1976. Fire and dwarf mistletoes in North American 

coniferous forests. Journal of Forestry 74(7):446–449. 

Allen, C.D. 1989. Changes in the landscape of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. Dissertation, 

University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Allen, C.D., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, D.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P.B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12(5):1418–

1433. 

Amacher, Michael C., Amber D. Johnson, Debra E. Kutterer, and Dale L. Bartos. 2001. First-year 

postfire and postharvest soil temperatures in aspen and conifer stands. Res. Pap. RMRSRP-27-WWW. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 24 pp. 

Archer, S., T.W. Boutton, and K.A. Hibbard. 2000. Trees in grasslands: Biogeochemical 

consequences of woody plant expansion. In: Global Biogeochemical Cycles in the 

Climate System. E.D. Schulze, S.P. Harrison, M. Heimann, E.A. Holland, J. Lloyd, I.C. 

Prentice, and D. Schimel, eds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 383

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

for the State of Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. Online: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011.

______. 2004. Revision State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze. Phoenix, AZ. Online: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2004_RH_SIP_Revision.pdf. 

______ . 2004. Title 18 Environmental Quality, Chapter 2 DEQ Pollution Control, Article 15 

Forest and Range Management Burns. Phoenix, AZ. Online: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/download/prules.pdf. Accessed March 05, 2011. 

Arno, Stephen F. 1985. Ecological effects and management implications of Indian fires. General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-182. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. Pp. 81–86. 

Barrett, S.; D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. Hann, C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. Demeo, L. 

Hutter, and J. Menakis. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. 

Version 3.0 (Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Web site, USDA 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy). Online: 

http://www.frcc.gov/. 

Bartos, D.L. 2001. Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. In: USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-18. 

Biswell, H.H., R.P. Gibbens, and H. Buchanan. 1966. Litter production by big trees and 

associated species. Calif. Agric. 20:5–7. 

Bond, W.J., and J.E. Keeley. 2005. Fire as a global “herbivore” the ecology and evolution of 

flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 20(7): 387–394. 

Brewer, D.G., R.K. Jorgensen, L.P. Munk, W.A. Robbie, and J.L. Travis. 1991. Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region. 

Brown, H.E. 1958. Gambel Oak in West-Central Colorado. Ecology 39(2): 317–327. 

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits 

and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. RMRS-GTR-105. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30(2): 129–164. 

Core, J.E. 2001. State Smoke Management Programs. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed 

and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Core, J.E. 2001a. Visibility. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 

Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Covington, W.W. 2002. Ecological Restoration Thinning of Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: 

Alternative Treatment Outcomes Very Widely. In: Fire, fuel treatments and ecological 

restoration: Conference proceedings. P.N. Omi and J.L., tech eds. April 16–18, 2002; Fort 

Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 475 pp. 

Covington, W.W. 2011. Discussion on Science Friday, 9/23/20011 
References

384 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: Changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry. 

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1984. The effect of a prescribed burn in southwestern 

ponderosa pine on organic matter and nutrients in woody debris and forest floor. Forest 

Science. 30(1):183–192. 

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed 

burning in ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 54:175–191. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, S.C. Hart, and R.P. Weaver. 2001. Modeling ecological restoration 

effects on ponderosa pine forest structure. Restoration Ecology 9(4):421–431. 

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. 

Wagner.1997. Restoring Ecosystem Health in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 95(4):23–29. 

Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final 

Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Region. 272 pp. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 

5292. 

Dahms, Cathy W., and Brian W. Geils, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health 

in the Southwest. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO. U.S.A. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 97 pp. Online: http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/rm_gtr_295/. 

Accessed April, 5, 2012. 

DeByle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United 

States. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. GTR-RM-119. 

DeByle, N.V., C.D. Bevins, and W.C. Fischer. 1987. Wildfire Occurrence in Aspen in the Interior 

Western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2(3): 73–76.

DeLuca, J. 2008. Aspen Stems per Acre on the Williams Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. 

Williams Ranger District Data.

Dieterich, John H. 1980. The composite fire interval – a tool for more accurate interpretation of 

fire history. In: Proceedings of the fire history workshop. October 20–24, 1980. Tucson, 

AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pp 8–14. 

Diggins, C., P.Z. Fulé, J.P. Kaye, and W.W. Covington. 2010. Future climate affects management 

strategies for maintaining forest restoration treatments. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 19:903–913. 

Egan, D. 2011. Protecting old trees from prescribed burning. Working Paper No. 24. Ecological 

Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Fairweather, M.L., B.W. Geils, and M. Manthei. 2007. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. WIFDWC 55. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 385

Ffolliott, P.F., and G.J. Gottfried. 1991. Natural tree regeneration after clearcutting in Arizona’s 

ponderosa pine forests: two long-term case studies. Res. Note RM-507. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 6 pp. 

Fiedler, C.E., and C.E. Keegan. 2003. Reducing Crown Fire Hazard in Fire-Adapted Forests of 

New Mexico. In: Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration, Conference 

Proceedings. April 2002. Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P29. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p029.html. Accessed October, 11, 2011.

Finkral, A.J., and A.M. Evans. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a 

northern Arizona pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743–2750. 

Finney, M.A. 2004. Farsite: Fire area simulator – Model Development and Evaluation. USDA 

Forest Service RMRS-RP-4 Revised.

Finney, M.A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap modeling capabilities. USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 

Finney, M.A., R. Bartlette, L. Bradshaw, K. Close, B.M. Collins, P. Gleason, W.M. Hao, P. 

Langowski, J. McGinely, C.W. McHugh, E. Martinson, P.N. Omi, W. Shepperd, and K. 

Zeller. 2003. Fire behavior, fuel treatments, and fire suppression on the Hayman Fire. 

Hayman fire case study. R.T. Graham, ed. GTR-RMRS-114. USDA Forest Service, 

Ogden, UT. 

Fitch, M., R. Truman. 2007. Specialist Report for Air Resources: Kaibab National Forest. 

Williams, AZ.

Ffolliott, P.F., and G.J. Gottfried. 1991. Natural Tree Regeneration After Clearcutting in Arizona’s 

Ponderosa Pine Forests: Two Long-Term Case Studies. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Research Note RM-507. 

ForestEra. 2010. GIS data (process and mask for adjusting fire behavior outputs to reflect changes 

since the base Landfire data layers were updated). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona 

University.

Fowler, J.F., C. Hull Sieg, and L.L. Wadleigh. 2010. Effectiveness of Litter Removal to Prevent 

Cambial Kill-Caused Mortality in Northern Arizona Ponderosa Pine. Forest Science. 

56(2): 166–171. 

Fulé, P.Z., A.E.M. Waltz, W.W. Covington, and T. A. Heinlein. 2001. Measuring Forest 

Restoration Effectiveness in Reducing Hazardous Fuels. Journal of Forestry. November 

2001. 

Fulé, P.Z. Personal communication email: 1/6/2011. Faculty, Fire Ecology/Forestry, Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Fulé, P.Z., C. McHugh, T.A. Heinlein, and W.W. Covington. 2001. Potential fire Behavior is 

Reduced Following Forest Restoration Treatments. USDA, U.S. Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-22. 

Fulé, P. Z., and D. C. Laughlin. 2007. Wildland fire effects on forest structure over an altitudinal 

gradient, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology. 44: 136–146. 
References

386 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Fulé, P.Z., D.C. Laughlin, and W.W. Covington. 2005. Pine-oak forest dynamics five years after 

ecological restoration treatments, AZ, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 218:129–

145. 

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, J.P. Roccaforte, and E.L. Kalies. 2012. Do thinning and/or burning 

treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore 

natural fire behavior? Forest Ecology and Management 269:68–81. 

Fulé, P.Z., T.A. Heinlein, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2003. Assessing fire regimes on 

Grand Canyon landscapes with fire-scar and fire-record data. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 12: 129–145. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 1997a. Determining reference conditions for 

ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 

7(3): 895–908. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, M.M. Moore, T.A. Heinlein, and A.E.M. Waltz. 1997b. Natural 

variability in forests of the Grand Canyon. USA. Ecological Applications 7(3):895–908. 

Garlough, E.C., and C.R. Keyes. 2011. Influences of moisture content, mineral content, and bulk 

density on smoldering combustion of ponderosa pine duff mounds. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 20: 589–596. 

Gerdes, J. 2012. Personal communication email: 1/23/2012. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9.

Gori, Dave and Joanna Bate. 2007. Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition 

Modeling of Historical and Current Landscape Conditions for Pinyon-Juniper of the 

Southwestern U.S. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The 

Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 141 pp. 

Graham, R. 2012a. Personal communication email: 4/25/2012, 6/7/2012; and 9/12/2012. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. 

Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA, Forest 

Service Research Paper INT-RP-477. 

Grand Canyon National Park. 2011. Unpublished fire effects monitoring data from 1992–2010. 

Gruell, G.E. 1985. Fire on the early western landscape: an annotated record of wildland fires 

1776–1900. Northwest Sci. 59:97–107. 

Hall, W., A. Thode, K. Waring, N. McCusker, and M. Lata. 2011. Using the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator to Determine Proposed Restoration Treatment Effectiveness and Maintenance 

Interval: An Analysis of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (MF Professional Paper). 

Flagstaff, AZ. Northern Arizona University. 69 pp. 

Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havalina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T.D. Meo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. 

Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook Version 1.3.0. Last update, June 2008. Available at 

www.frcc.gov. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 387

Hardy, C.C. 2005. Wildland fire hazard and risk: Problems, definitions, and context. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 211:73–82. 

Hardy, C.C., K.M. Schmidt, J.P. Menakis, and R.N. Sampson. 2001a. Spatial data for national fire 

planning and management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10(3 and 4): 535– 572. 

Online: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WF01034.pdf. Accessed on 

January 5, 2010. 

Hardy, C.C., Roger D. Ottmar, Janice L. Peterson, John E. Core, and Paula Seamon. 2001b. 

Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 edition, NFES 1279. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Fire Use Working Team. 226 pp. 

Hardy, C.C., S.M. Hermann, and John E. Core. 2001b. The Smoke Management Imperative. 

Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 

420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Hartford, R.A., and W.H. Frandsen. 1992. When It’s Hot, It’s Hot...or Maybe It’s Not! (Surface 

Flaming May Not Portent Extensive Soil Heating). International Journal of Wildland Fire 

2(3):139–144. 

Harrington, M.G., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Past and present fire influences on Southwestern 

ponderosa pine old growth. In: Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain 

regions; proceedings of a workshop. Pages 44–50. M.R. Kaufmann, W.H. Moir, and R.L. 

Bassett, tech. coords. March 9, 1992. Portal, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-213. Fort Collins, 

CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 201 pp. 

Havlina et al. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website. USDA Forest Service, 

USDA Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy. Online 

http://www.frcc.gov/. 

Heinlein, T.A., M.M. Moore, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington, 2005. Fire history and stand 

structure of two ponderosa pine – mixed conifer sites: San Francisco Peaks, AZ, USA. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 14: 307–320. 

Higgins, B.J., H.P. Kleindienst. 2011. Vegetation, Fire, and Fuels Specialist Report. Kaibab 

National Forest. Williams, AZ.

Huffman, D.W., P.Z. Fulé, J.E. Crouse, and K.M. Pearson. 2009. A comparison of fire hazard 

mitigation alternatives in pinyon-juniper woodlands of Arizona. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 257: 628–635. 

Huffman, D.W., P.Z. Fulé, K.M. Pearson, and J.E. Crouse. 2008. Fire history of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands at upper ecotones with ponderosa pine forests in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38:2097–2108. 

Huffman, D.W., P.Z. Fulé, K.M. Pearson, J.E. Crouse, and W.W. Covington. 2006. PinyonJuniper Fire Regime: Natural Range of Variability. 04-JF-11221615-271. Final Report. 

Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University. 

Hungerford, Roger D. 1988. Soil temperatures and suckering in burned and unburned aspen 

stands in Idaho. Research Note INT-378. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 
References

388 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Hurteau, M.D., and M. North. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage 

and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. Vol. 7. Oct. 2009. pp. 409–414. 

Hurteau, M.D., M.T. Stoddard, and P.Z. Fulé. 2011. The carbon costs of mitigating high-severity 

wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine. Global Change Biology 17:1516-1521. 

Jones, J.R., and N.V. DeByle. 1985. Chapter II. Ecology/Fire in Aspen Ecology and Management 

in the Western United States. United States. Eds. N.V. DeByle and R.P. Winokur. USDA 

Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. GTR-RM-119. 

Kean, R.E., E.D. Reinhardt, J. Scott, K. Gray, and J. Reardon. 2005. Estimating forest canopy 

bulk density using six indirect methods. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 35(3): 

724–739. 

Keeley, J.E. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity, and burn severity: a brief review and suggested 

usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18:116–126

Keeley, J.E., and C.J. Fotheringham. 2000. Role of Fire in Regeneration from Seed. In: Seeds: 

The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities, 2nd edition. Michael Fenner, ed. Cab 

International. 

Ketterer, M.E., K.M. Hafer, C.L. Link, D. Kolwaite, J. Wilson, and J.W. Mietelski. 2004. 

Resolving global versus local/regional PU sources in the environment using sector ICP – 

MS. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry. Vol. 19:241–245. 

Kleindienst, H.P. 2012. Specialists Report on Air Quality for the Kaibab National Forest Plan 

Revision. Kaibab National Forest, USDA Forest Service. 

Kolb, T.E., J.K. Agee, P.Z. Fulé, N.G. McDowell, K. Pearson, A. Sala, and R.H. Waring. 2007. 

Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 249:141–157. 

Koo, B., C.H. Chien, G. Tonnesen, R. Morris, J. Johnson, T. Sakulyanontvittaya, P. 

Piyachaturawat, and G. Yarwood. 2010. Natural emissions for regional modeling of 

background ozone and particulate matter and impacts on emissions control strategies. 

Atmospheric Environment 44: 2372–2382. 

Kozlowski, T.T., and C.E. Ahlgren. 1974. Fire and Ecosystems. Academic Press, New York. 542 

pp. 

Kunzler, L.M.; Harper, K.T. 1980. Recovery of Gambel oak after fire in central Utah. Great Basin 

Naturalist 40:127–130. 

LANDFIRE. 2010a. LANDFIRE 1.1.0 Landscape (LCP) File – FBFM40. U.S. Forest Service. 

Online: http://www.landfire.gov/datatool.php. Accessed: January, 2012.

LANDFIRE. 2010b. LANDFIRE Data Access Tool. LANDFIRE Project, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior. Online: http://landfire.gov/. 

Lata, M. 2006. Variables affecting first order fire effects, characteristics, and behavior in 

experimental and prescribed fires in mixed and tallgrass prairie. Doctoral dissertation. 

University of Iowa, Department of Geoscience.

_____. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 332 pp 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 389

Laughlin, D.C., and P.Z. Fulé. 2008. Wildland fire effects on understory plant communities in two 

fire-prone forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 38:133–142. 

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, P.Z. Fulé. 2011. A century of increasing pine density and associated 

shifts in understory plant strategies. Ecology 92(3):556–561. 

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 22:1–10. 

Leiberg, John B., Theodore F. Rixon, and Arthur Dodwell. 1904. Forest Conditions in the San 

Francisco Forest Reserve, AZ. U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological 

Survey. Professional Paper No. 22. 

Low, K. 2006. Effects of forest thinning treatments on fire behavior. Working Paper No.15 in 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration. Northern Arizona University, 

Ecological Restoration Institute, Flagstaff, AZ.

Lynch, D.L., W.H. Romme, and M.L. Floyd. Forest Restoration in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine 

Journal of Forestry. August 2000. 

McCusker, N.A. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National Forests 

Silviculture Specialist Report. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Margolis, E.Q., T.W. Swetnam, and C.D. Allen. 2011. Historical stand-replacing fire in upper 

montane forests of the Madrean sky islands and Mogollon Plateau, Southwestern USA. 

Fire Ecology. 7(3):88–107. 

Mast, J.N., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington, A.E.M. Waltz.1999. Restoration of presettlement age structure of an Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Ecological Applications 

9(1):228–239. 

McPherson, Guy R., Dale D. Wade, and Clinton B. Phillips. 1990. Glossary of wildland fire 

management terms. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.

Mitchell, Jerry M. 1984. Fire management action plan: Zion National Park, Utah. Record of 

Decision. 73 pp. Report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 17278 

Moir, W.H. and J.H. Deiterich. 1988. Old-Growth ponderosa pine from succession in pine–

bunchgrass forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Natural Areas Journal 8(1):17–24.

Moore, M.M., and D.W. Huffman. 2004. Tree Encroachment on Meadows of the North Rim, 

Grand Canyon National Park, AZ, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 

36(4):474–483. 

Moore, M.M, D.W. Huffman, P.Z. Fulé, W.W. Covington, and J.E. Crouse. 2004. Comparison of 

Historical and Contemporary Forest Structure and Composition on Permanent Plots in 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Forest Science 5(2):162–176. 

Moore, M.M., W.W. Covington, and P.Z. Fulé. 1999. Reference conditions and ecological 

restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective. Ecological Applications 

9(4):1266–1277. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2008. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. 

Incident Operations Standards Working Team. Online: http://www.nwcg.gov. Accessed 

January 4, 2010. 
References

390 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

National Interagency Fuels, Fire and Vegetation Technology Transfer (NIFTT). 2010. Fire 

Regime Condition Class Software Application User’s Guide Version 3.0.3.0. 

Neary, Daniel G., Kevin C. Ryan, and Leonard F. DeBano, eds. 2005. (Revised 2008). Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-

Vol.4. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 250 pp. 

New Mexico Environment Department. 2002. Fact Sheet: Cerro Grande Fire. NMED DOE 

Oversight Bureau. Online: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/DOE_Oversight/RAC.htm. 

Nicolet, T. 2011. Fire and Fuels Specialist Report for the Rim Lakes Forest Health Project. 

Unpublished report on file with USDA Forest Service, Sitgreaves National Forest, 

Springerville, AZ. 

Noble, William O. et al. 2013. Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab NF Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. On 

file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record.

North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixedconifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications 19(6):1385–1396. 

Omi, P.N., and E.J. Martinson. 2004. Effectiveness of Thinning and Prescribed Fire in Reducing 

Wildfire Severity. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. 

Ottmar, R.D. 2001. Smoke Source Characteristics. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and 

Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Parmeter, J.R., and B. Uhrenholdt. 1974. Some Effects of Pine-Needle or Grass Smoke on Fungi. 

Pre-published work, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Berkeley. 

Online: 

http://www.apsnet.org/publications/phytopathology/backissues/Documents/1975Articles/

Phyto65n01_28.PDF. Accessed July, 2012.

Passovy, M.D., and P.Z. Fulé. 2006. Snag and woody debris dynamics following severe wildfires 

in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 223: 237–

246. 

Peterson, J.L. 2001. Regulations for Smoke Management. Smoke Management Guide for 

Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID. 

Pearson, G.A. 1931. Forest types in the Southwest as determined by climate and soil. Technical 

Bulletin 247. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Puhlick, J.J., D.C. Laughlin, and M.M. Moore. 2012. Factors influencing ponderosa pine 

regeneration in the southwestern USA. Forest Ecology and Management 264:10–19.

Pyke, A.D., M.L. Brooks, and C. D’Antonio. 2010. Fire as a restoration tool: a decision 

framework for predicting the control or enhancement of plants using fire. Restoration 

Ecology 18(3):274–284. 

Pyne, S. 2011. Interview with the National Fire Protection Association. Online: 

http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp?categoryID=&itemID=53565&src=NFPAJo

urnal&cookie_test=1. Accessed in November 2002. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 391

Rebain, S.A. comp. 2010 (revised May 10, 2011). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model Documentation. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 387 

pp. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M. Hildegard Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., 

G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the 

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service. Gen Tech 

Report RM-217. 

Roccaforte, J.P., P.Z. Fulé, W.W. Walker Chancellor, and D.C. Laughlin. 2012. Woody debris and 

tree regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42:593 – 604. 

Roccaforte, J.P., P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington. 2008. Landscape-scale changes in canopy fuels 

and potential fire behavior following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 17:293–203. 

Rothermel, R.C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Research Paper INT438. Ogden, UT.

Ryan, M.G. 2010. Temperature and tree growth. Tree Physiol. 30:667–668. 

Ryan, K.C., and W.H. Frandsen. 1991. Basal Injury from smoldering fires in mature Pinus 

ponderosa Laws. International Journal of Wildland Fire 1(2):107–118. 

Sackett, Stephen S., and Sally M. Haase. 1998. Two case histories for using prescribed fire to 

restore ponderosa pine ecosystems in northern Arizona. In: Fire in ecosystem 

management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Teresa L. Pruden 

and Leonard A. Brennan, eds. Pp 380–389. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 

Proceedings, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, FL. 

Sánchez Meador, A.J., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, and P.F. Parysow. 2009. 108 years of change in 

spatial pattern following selective harvest of a Pinus ponderosa stand in northern Arizona, 

USA. Journal of Vegetation Science 20:79–90. 

Savage, M., and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after 

crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 35:967–977. 

Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendall J. Hann, and David L. Bunnell. 

2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41 pp. Online: 

http://www.fire.org/niftt/released/Schmidt_et_al_2002.pdf. Data accessed January 4, 

2010. 

Schollnberger, H., J. Aden, and B.R. Scott. 2002. Respiratory Tract Deposition Efficiencies: 

Evaluation of Effects from Smoke Released in the Cerro Grande Forest Fire. Journal of 

Aerosol Medicine 15(4):387–399. 

Schubert, G.H. 1974. Silviculture of southwestern ponderosa pine: the status of our knowledge. 

Research Paper RM-123. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 71 pp. 
References

392 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Schwilk, D. =W., and N. Zavala. 2012. Germination response of grassland species to plantderived smoke. Journal of Arid Environments. 79:111–115. 

Scott, Joe H. 2003. Canopy fuel treatment standards for the wildland-urban interface. In: Fire, 

Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration, Conference Proceedings. April 16–18, 

2002. Ft. Collins, CO. Philip N. Omi and Linda A. Joyce, tech. eds. 2003. USDA Forest 

Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p029.html. 

Accessed October 11, 2011. 

Scott, Joe H., and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models 

of surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 pp. Online: 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4623. 

Scott, Joe H., and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2005. Stereo photo guide for estimating canopy fuel 

characteristics in conifer stands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-145. Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 pp. Online: 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/8473. 

Scott, J.H., and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A comprehensive set for 

use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. RMRS-GTR-153. USDA Forest Service. 

Shepperd, W.D. 1986. Silviculture of Aspen Forests in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest. 

USDA Forest Service RM-TT-7. 

Smith, Ed. 2006. Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition Modeling of Historical 

and Current Landscape Conditions for Ponderosa Pine of the Southwestern U.S. Prepared 

for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. 43 pp. 

Smith, E. and H. Schussman. 2007. Historical Range of Variation and State and Transition 

Modeling of Historic and Current Landscape Conditions for Potential Natural Vegetation 

Types of the Southwest. The Nature Conservancy, Southwest Forest Assessment Project.

Sorensen D.C., J.A. Finkral, E.T. Kolb, and H.C. Huang. 2011. Short- and long-term effects of 

thinning and prescribed fire on carbon stocks in ponderosa pine stands in northern 

Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management. 261 (2011) 460–472. 

Steinke, R. 2007. Historic Ponderosa Pine Stand Structure of Mollisols, and Mollic Integrade 

Soils on the Coconino National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest. 

Unpublished internal study. 

Strand, E.K., L.A. Vierling, S.C. Bunting, and P.E. Gessler. 2009. Quantifying successional rates 

in western aspen woodlands: Current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecology and 

Management 257:1705–1715. 

Stratton, Richard D. 2004. Assessing the Effectiveness of Landscape Fuel Treatments on Fire 

Growth and Behavior. Journal of Forestry 102(7):32–40.

_____. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 15 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 393

_____. 2009. Landfire Fuels Data Acquisition, Critique, Modification, Maintenance, and Model 

Calibration. USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-220. 

Strom, B.A., and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine 

forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16:128–138. 

Sugihara, Neil G., Jan W. van Wagtendonk, and JoAnn Fites-Kaufman. 2006. Fire as an 

ecological process. In: Fire in California’s Ecosystems. Neil G. Sugihara, Jan W. van 

Wagtendonk, Kevin E. Shaffer, JoAnn Fites-Kaufman, and Andrea E. Thode, eds. 

California: University of California Press. Berkeley. Pp. 58–74. 

Swetnam, T. 1990. Fire History and Climate in the Southwest. Panel paper presented at the 

conference, Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. Tucson, AZ, 

November 14–17, 1988. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. Fire effects in southwestern forest: Proceeding of the 2nd La Mesa 

Fire symposium. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Technical Report RM-GTR286. Pages 11–32. 

Swetnam, T.W., and J.L. Betancourt. 1998. Mesoscale disturbance and Ecological Response to 

Decadal Climatic Variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11:3128–

3147. 

Swetnam, T.W., and J.H. Dieterich. 1985. Fire history of ponderosa pine forests in the Gila 

Wilderness, New Mexico. pp. 390–397. In: Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop 

on Wilderness Fire. Nov. 15–18, 1983, Missoula, MT. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. 

INT-182. 

Tong, D.Q., and D.L. Mauzerall. 2008. Summertime State-Level Source-Receptor Relationships 

between Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Surface Ozone Concentrations over the 

Continental Unites States. Environmental Science and Technology 42:7976–7984.

Triepke, F.J., B.J. Higgins, R.N. Weisz, J.A. Youtz, and T. Nicolet. 2011. Diameter caps and forest 

restoration – Evaluation of a 16-inch cut limit on achieving desired conditions. USDA 

Forest Service Forestry Report FR-R3-13-3. Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. 31 pp. 

USDA. 2008. Fire Effects Information System Glossary. In: Fire Effects Information System 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory (Producer). Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/glossary.html. 

Accessed October 14, 2008. 

USDA Forest Service. Kaibab National Forest. 2006. Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the 

Kaibab National Forest: An Evaluation of Terrestrial Ecosystems (Ecological Units, Soil 

Composition, Structure and Processes) that Affect Ecosystem Diversity and Contribute to 

Ecological Sustainability. R. Steinke, author. 

USDA and USDI. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policy and Program Review: Final 

Report. Washington, DC.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. St. George, UT. 
References

394 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Regional Haze Rule. 40 CFR 51.300–309. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf. 

______. 2010. Air Quality Index Charts for Coconino County. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 101–549. Clean Air Act as Amended Nov. 1990. 42 U.S.C. 

§7401. 

Van Wagner, C.E. 1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Resource 3:373–378. 

______. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of a crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 71(3):23–30. 

Waltz, A., P.Z. Fulé, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2003. Diversity in ponderosa pine forest 

structure following ecological restoration treatments. Forest Science 49(6): 885–900. 

Ward, D.E., and C.C. Hardy. 1991. Smoke emissions from wildland fires. Environmental 

International 17:117–134. 

Waring, K.M., D.M. Reboletti, L.A. Mork, C-H. Huang, R.W. Hofstetter, A.M. Garcia, P.Z. Fulé, 

and T.S. Davis. 2009. Modeling the impacts of two bark beetle species under a warming 

climate in the southwestern USA: Ecological and Economic Consequences. 

Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9342. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an Ecological factor in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of 

Forestry. 49: 93–98. 

Westerling, A.L., H.D. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increases western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943. 

Wiedinmyer, C., and M.D. Hurteau. 2012. Prescribed Fire as a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon 

Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science and Technology 

44:1926–1932. 

Williams, A.P., C.D. Allen, C.I. Millar, T.W. Swetnam, J.M. Michaelsen, C.J. Still, and S.W. 

Leavitt. 2010. Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern 

United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 107(50):21289–21294. 

Woods, K.W., J. Langer, K. Mesaros, and S. Plumb. 2012. Carbon Commodities Funding Forest 

Restoration Draft Report. Prepared for M. Selig, Grand Canyon Trust. 

Zimmerman, G.T., and R.D. Laven. 1987. Effects of Forest Fuel Smoke on Dwarf Mistletoe Seed 

Germination. Great Basin Naturalist 47(4):652–659. 

Heritage and Tribal Resources 

Covington, W. Wallace, Peter Z. Fulé, and Margaret M. Moore.1997. Restoring Ecosystem Health 

in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwest. Journal of Forestry, 95 (4): 23–29.

Crossley, Angela, David J. Gifford, and Mike Lyndon. 2003. Timberline Wildland Urban 

Interface. COF Project 20003-41-A. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project 

Record. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 395

Deal, Krista.1999. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Obsidian and Implications for Reconstructing 

Past Landscapes. Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, April 23–25, 

1999, Sacramento, CA. 

Gifford, David. J. 2011. A Heritage Resources Clearance and Archaeological Survey Strategy for 

the 4FRI Project, First EIS, on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. 2011. COF 

Project 2011-04-12 and KNF Report 2011-07-15. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI 

Project Record.

_____. 2010. Heritage Wildland Fire Report. COF Project 2010-20-A. Ms. On file at the 

Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Gifford, David. J., Margaret Hangan, David Johnson, Craig Johnson, Dan Mezza, and Henry 

Provencio. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National 

Forests Heritage Specialist Report. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Haines, Jeremy. 2010. Schultz Fire BAER Assessment. COF Report 2010-26-A. Ms. On file at 

the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Hanson, John. 1999. Kaibab Cultural Affiliation Assessment. Ms. on file at the Kaibab National 

Forest, Williams, AZ.

Jackson, Robert J.1998. Prescribed Fire and the Protection of Heritage Resources. A Heritage 

Resources Management Module, Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. Pacific Legacy, Inc. 

Sacramento, CA.

Johnson, Craig. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Tribal Relations Specialist Report. Ms. 

On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C 470 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Online: 

www. achp.gov/nhpa.html. 

Ruscavage-Barz, Samantha.1999. Fire in the Hole: The Effects of Fire on Subsurface 

Archaeological Materials (Draft). National Park Service, Bandelier National Monument, 

New Mexico. Manuscript on file, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico and 

Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, AZ. 

Parker, Patricia, and Thomas King.1998. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating 

and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. USDI, NPS, Interagency Resources 

Division.

USDA Forest Service.2003. First Amended Programmatic Agreement between the Southwestern 

Region the New Mexico Historic Preservation Office, and the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Office Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. Ms. On 

file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

USDI National Park Service. Cultural Resources Protection and Fire Planning Course. 2004. Fire 

Effects to Lithic Artifacts. January 12–16, 2004, Tucson, AZ.
References

396 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Lands, Minerals, and Lands Special Uses

Rowe, Julie. 2012. Lands Special Uses and Minerals Report, Four-Forest Restoration, Coconino 

and Kaibab National Forests, Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. On file at the 

Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Lands Specialist Report for Coconino National Forest Draft Land 

Management Plan. Flagstaff, AZ. Unpublished document on file at Coconino National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office.

______. 2011. Minerals Specialist Report for Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management 

Plan. Flagstaff, AZ. Unpublished document on file at the Coconino National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office.

______. 2012. Minerals and Mining Activities section, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan Revision. Williams, AZ. Unpublished 

document on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

______. 2012. IWEB Special Uses Database System (SUDS). Coconino National Forest, query 

on March 9, 2012, Authorizations by Township/Range/Section. 

Rangeland Management

Abella, S.R. 2004. Tree thinning and prescribed burning effects on ground flora in Arizona 

ponderosa pine forests: A review. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 

36(2):68–76. 

Abella, S.R., and W.W. Covington. 2006. Forest ecosystems of an Arizona Pinus ponderosa 

landscape: multifactor classification and implications for ecological restoration. Journal 

of Biogeography 33:1368–1383. 

Arizona Champion. 1888. Flagstaff, Arizona weekly newspaper.

Arnold, J.F. 1950. Changes in Ponderosa Pine Bunchgrass Ranges in Northern Arizona Resulting 

from Pine Regeneration and Grazing. Journal of Forestry 48:118–126. 

Arnold, J.F. 1955. Plant Life-Form Classification and Its Use in Evaluating Range Conditions and 

Trend. Journal of Range Management 8(4):176–181. 

Bakker, J.D., and M.M. Moore. 2007. Controls on vegetation structure in southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests, 1941 and 2004. Ecology: 88:2305–2319. 

Beale, E.F. 1858. Wagon road from Fort Defiance to the Colorado River. 35 Cong. 1 Sess., Sen. 

Exec. Doc. 124.

Bell, W.A. 1870. New Tracks in North America. 2nd Edition, 2 Vols. London: Chapman and Hall. 

Brewer, D.G. 2011. Parker 3 Step analysis for 4FRI project area. 4FRI Project Record. 

Brewer, D.G., R.K. Jorgensen, L.P. Munk, W.A. Robbie, and J.L. Travis. 1991. Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest. USDA Forest Service Southwestern 

Region. 319 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 397

Breshears, R.G, N.S. Cobb, P.M. Rich, K.P. Price, C.D. Allen, R.G. Balice, W.H. Romme, J.H. 

Kastens, M.L. Floyd, J. Belnap, J.J. Anderson, O.B. Myers, and C.W. Meyer. 2005. 

Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences 102(42):15144–48. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forest since 

white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30(2):129–164. 

Covington, W.W. 1993. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to 

land management. USDA. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Experiment Station. Gen 

Tech. Report. RM-247. 

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure and resource 

conditions: changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39–47.

Dutton, C.E. 1887. Physical geology of the Grand Canon district. U.S. Geological Survey. 2nd 

Annual Report, pp. 49–166. 

Farish, T.E. 1889. Northern Arizona, its forest, arable, and grazing lands. Phoenix, Arizona 

Gazette Printers.

Ffolliott, P.F. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Pp 

13–18. In: Overstory-Understory Relationships in Western Forests. E.T. Bartlett and D.R. 

Betters, eds. West. Reg. Res. Pub. 1. Colorado Agr. Exp. Sta., Fort Collins. 

Giffis, K.L., J.A. Crawford, M.R. Wagner, and W.H. Moir. 2001. Understory response to 

management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management 146:239–245. 

Gundale, M.J., T.H. DeLuca, C.E. Fiedler, P.W. Ramsey, M.G. Harrington, and J.E. Gannon. 

2005. Restoration treatments in a Montana ponderosa pine forest: Effects on soil 

physical, chemical and biological properties. Forest Ecology and Management 213:25–

38. 

Hannemann, Mike. 2013. Range Specialist Report, Coconino and Kaibab Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative (4FRI), DEIS. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 44 pp. 

Heinlein, T.A. 1996. Fire regimes and forest structure in lower mixed conifer forests: San 

Francisco Peaks, Arizona. M. S. Thesis. Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ. 99 pp. 

Hughs, L.C. 1893. Report of Governor of Arizona to Secretary of Interior. In: Ann. Report Dept. 

Interior, Misc. Reports, 1893. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, and P.Z. Fulé. 2011. A century of increasing pine density and 

associated shifts in understory plant strategies. Ecology 92:556–561. 

Laughlin, D.C., and M.M. Moore. 2009. Climate-induced temporal variation in the productivitydiversity relationship. Oikos 118:897–902. 

Laughlin, D.C., and S.R. Abella. 2007. Abiotic and biotic factors explain independent gradients of 

plant community composition in ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Modeling 205: 231–

240. 
References

398 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. 

Covington. 2006. Assessing Targets for the Restoration of Herbaceous Vegetation in 

Ponderosa Pine Forests. Restoration Ecology 548–560. 

Laughlin, D.C., J.D. Bakker, and P.Z. Fulé. 2005. Understory plant community structure in lower 

montane and subalpine forests, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography 32:2083–2102. 

Loeser, M.R., T.D. Sisk, and T.E. Crews. 2007. Impacts of grazing intensity during drought in an 

Arizona Grassland. Conservation Biology 21(1):87–97.

McLaughlin, S.P. 1978. Determining understory production in Southwestern ponderosa pine 

forests, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 105(3):224–229. 

Merriam, C.H. 1890. Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain region and 

desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona. USDA North American. Fauna 3. 

Moore, M.M., C.A. Casey, J.D. Bakker, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fulé, W.W. Covington, and D.C. 

Laughlin. 2006. Herbaceous vegetation responses (1992–2004) to restoration treatments 

in a ponderosa pine forest. Rangeland Ecology Management 59:135–144. 

Moore, M.M., and D.A. Deiter. 1992. Stand density index as a predictor of forage production in 

Northern Arizona pine forests. Journal of Range Management 45:267–271. 

Moore, M.M., D.W. Huffman, J.D. Bakker, A.J. Sánchez Meador, D.M. Bell, P.Z. Fulé, P.F. 

Parysow, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Quantifying forest reference conditions for 

ecological restoration: The Woolsey plots. Final report to the Ecological Restoration 

Institute for the Southwest fire initiative.

Naumburg, E., and L.E. DeWald. 1999. Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, 

light characteristics, and understory graminoid species presence and abundance. Forest 

Ecology and Management 124(1999):205–215. 

Noble, William O. 2012. Understory Response to Changes in Overstory Cover. USDA Forest 

Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. Unpublished report. 

O’Connor, T.G. 1991. Local extinction in perennial grasslands: a life-history approach. American 

Naturalist 137:753–773. 

Pearson, G.A. 1910. Reproduction of western yellow pine in the Southwest. USDA Forest 

Service. Circular 174. 

Pearson, H.A., and D.A. Jameson. 1967. The Wild Bill Range: The relationship between timber 

and cattle production on ponderosa pine range. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service.

Riegel, G.M., R.F. Miller, W.C. Krueger. 1995. The effects of aboveground and belowground 

competition on understory species composition in a Pinus ponderosa forest. Forest 

Science 41:864–889. 

Savage, M. 1991. Structural dynamics of a southwestern pine forest under chronic human 

disturbance. Annuals of the Association of American Geographers 81:271–289. 

Savage, M., and T.W. Swetnam. 1990. Early 19th century fire decline following sheep pasturing 

in a Navajo ponderosa pine forest. Ecology 71:2374–2378. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 399

Stein, S.J. 1988. Explanation of the imbalanced age structure and scattered distribution of 

ponderosa pine within a high-elevation mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology 

Management 25:139–153. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. Pp. 11–32. In: Proc. of the 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium, C.D. 

Allen, ed. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-286. 216 pp. 

Stoddard, M.T., C.M. McGlone, P.Z. Fulé, D.C. Laughlin, and M.L. Daniels. 2011. Native plants 

dominate understory vegetation following ponderosa pine forest restoration treatments. 

Western North American Naturalist 71:206–214. 

Tapia Bojorquez, L.A., Peter F. Ffolliott, and D. Phillip Guertin. 1990. Herbage production-forest 

overstory relationship in two Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Range 

Management. 43:25–28. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended.

______. 1987. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. 

______. 2011–1950. Coconino National Forest. 2210 District Records. Range Analysis. 

______. 2011–1950. Coconino National Forest. 2210 District Records, Flagstaff and Mogollon 

Rim Ranger Districts. Range Analysis.

______. 2011–1950. Kaibab National Forest. 2210 District Records. Williams and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts, Range Analysis.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and F. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangeland not in 

equilibrium. Journal of Rangeland Management 42(4). 

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Recreation

American Trails. 2013. Website resources: National Scenic Trails. Online: 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/feds/40yearfact.html. Accessed on December 12, 

2012. 

Arizona State Parks. 2008. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. State of 

Arizona. Online: http://azstateparks.com/publications/index.html. Accessed July 12, 

2012. 

CLIMAS. 2011. Climate Change in the Southwest. Online: http://www.climas.arizona.edu/swclimate/climate-change. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Cordell, H. Ken, Gary T. Green, and Carter J. Betz. 2009. Long-Term National Trends in Outdoor 

Recreation Activity Participation – 1980 to Now. A Recreation Research Report in the 

IRIS Series. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station and Forest Sciences 

Laboratory, University of Georgia, University of Tennessee. Online: 

http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IrisReports.html. Accessed July 12, 2012. 
References

400 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Fairbank, David Metz. 2011. Key Findings – National Voter Attitudes Toward America’s Forests. 

Metz, Fairbanks for National Association of State Foresters. Online: 

http://www.stateforesters.org/library?sort_by=created&sort_order=DESC&page=3. 

Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Headwaters Economics. 2012. A profile of Demographics. State of Arizona, Coconino County, 

AZ. Produced by Economic Profile System Human Dimensions Toolkit. 57 pp. 

______. 2012. Travel and Tourism. State of Arizona, Coconino County, AZ. Produced by 

Economics Profile System Human Dimensions Toolkit. 30 pp. 

Hesseln, Hayley, John B. Loomis, Douglas B. Rideout, and Armando Gonzalez-Caban. 2004. 

Integrated fuels treatment assessment: ecological, economic, and financial impacts. Final 

Report 99-1-1-05. Submitted to Joint Fire Science Program: Boise, ID. Online: 

http://www.firescience.gov/projects/99-1-1-05/project/99-1-1-05_final_report.pdf. 

Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. May 2011. A compendium of 

questions and answers related to Wild and Scenic Rivers. Online: 

http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/documents/q-a.pdf. Accessed on December 12, 2012. 

Johnson, Kenneth M., and Susan I. Stewart. 2007. Demographic Trends in National Forests, 

Recreational Retirement and Amenity Areas. IN: Kruger, L. ed. Proceedings Recreation 

Research and Management Workshop. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698. 

Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Pages 187–199. 

Marlon, Jennifer R., Patrick J. Bartlein, Daniel G. Gavin, Colin J. Long, R. Scott Anderson, 

Christy E. Briles, Kendrick J. Brown, Daniele Colombaroli, Douglas J. Hallett, Mitchell 

J. Power, Elizabeth A. Scharf, and Megan K. Walsh. 2011. Long-term Perspective on 

Wildfires in the Western USA. Online: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/E535. 

Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Minor, Charlotte. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Recreation Specialist Report. Ms. On 

file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 92 pp. 

_____. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Scenery Specialist Report. Ms. On file at the 

Coconino NF, 4FRI Project Record. 

Noble, Bill O. 2012. Understory Response to Changes in Overstory Cover. USDA Forest Service, 

Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. Unpublished report. 

Ritchie, Martin W., Brian M. Wing, Todd A. Hamilton. 2008. Stability of the Large Tree 

Component in Treated and Untreated Late-Seral Interior Ponderosa Pine Stands. 

Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 38: 919–923. 

Sommers, Willie. 2009. Arizona’s State Trust Land. Arizona State Land Department. Phoenix, 

AZ. Pages 8–9. 

Toman, Eric, Melanie Stidham, Bruce Shindler, and Sarah McCaffrey. 2011. Reducing fuels in 

the wildland-urban interface: community perceptions of agency fuels treatments. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire (20):340–349. 

USDA Forest Service. 1976. ROS Users Guide. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. 38 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 401

______. 1986. ROS Book. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. 276 pp. 

______. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 

2509.22. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.104 pp. 

______. 2004. Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum-Scenery Management 

System Guidebook. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National 

Forest, Williams, AZ. 53 pp. 

______. 2005. 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, 295. Travel Management: Designated Routes and 

Ares for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol 70, No. 216. Wednesday 

November 9, 2005. 29 pp. 

______. 2008. Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5334653

Accessed July 12, 2012. 

______. 2010. A Framework for Sustainable Recreation. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 

9 pp. 

______. 2010. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/main/kaibab/landmanagement/planning. Accessed July 12, 

2012. 

______. 2011. Travel Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Coconino 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest. 795 pp. 

______. 2011. Travel Management Record of Decision, Coconino National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service, Coconino National Forest. 68 pp. 

______. 2011. Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. 178 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5334962.pdf. 

______. 2012. 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Coconino NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

______. 2012b. 2005 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Coconino NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

______. 2012c. 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kaibab NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

______. 2012d. 2005 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kaibab NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Accessed July 12, 2012. 
References

402 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

______. 2012. Kaibab National Forest Draft Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. 196 pp. Online: 

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/detail/kaibab/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB51

06605. 

Van Mantgem, Phillip J., Nathan L. Stephenson, John C. Byrne, Lori D. Daniels, Jerry F. 

Franklin, Peter Z. Fulé, Mark E. Harmon, Andrew J. Larson, Jeremy M. Smith, Alan H. 

Taylor, and Thomas T. Veblen. 2009. Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the 

Western Unites States. Science 323:521–524. 

Vest, Marshall. 2012. The Future is a Lot Like the Present, Only Longer – Yogi Berra. Arizona’s 

Economy. Eller College of Management, University of Arizona. April 2012/Spring Issue. 

9 pp. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidlago, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943. 

Williams, A. Park, Craig D. Allen, Constance I. Millar, Thomas W. Swetnam, Joel Michaelsen,

Christopher J. Still, and Steven W. Leavitt. 2010. Forest responses to increasing aridity 

and warmth in the southwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America, 107:21289–21294 pp. Online: 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21289. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Winter, Patricia. 2002. Californian’s Opinions on Wildland and Wilderness Fire Management. 

From: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Society and Resource 

Management, Bloomington, IN, June 2–5, 2002. Page 90. Online: 

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc231.pdf#page=90. 

Silviculture 

Abella, Scott R. 2008. Managing Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: the status 

of our knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 27 pp. 

Abella, S.R., and C.W. Denton. 2009. Spatial variation in reference conditions: Historical tree 

density and pattern on a Pinus ponderosa landscape. Canadian Journal of Forestry 

39:2391–2403. 

Abella, S.R., C.W. Denton, D.G. Brewer, W.A. Robbie, R.W. Steinke, W.W. Covington. 2011. 

Using a terrestrial ecosystem survey to estimate the historical density of ponderosa pine 

trees. Research Note RMRS-RN-45. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 9 pp. 

Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Shulke, P.B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M.T. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12(5):1418–

1433. 

Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in 

northern New Mexico landscapes. Ecosystems 10: 797–808. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 403

Andrews, S.R., and J.P. Daniels. 1960. A survey of dwarf mistletoes in Arizona and New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Station 

Paper 49:17 pp.

Brown, P.M., M.W. Kaye, L. Huckaby, and C. Baisan. 2001. Fire history along environmental 

gradients in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico: Influences of local patterns and 

regional processes. Ecoscience 8:115–126. 

Chojnacky, D.C., B.J. Bentz, and J.A. Logan. 2000. Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa 

pine: comparing methods for rating susceptibility. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, 

RMRS-RP-26, 10 pp. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30:129–164. 

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994a. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and 

forest structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry 2(1/2):153–181. 

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994b. Southwestern ponderosa pine structure: changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39–47.

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. 

Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 94(4):23–29. 

Crookston, Nickolas L., Melinda Moeur, and David Renner. 2002. Users guide to the most similar 

neighbor imputation program version 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-96. 

Dahms C.W., and B.W. Geils, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the 

Southwest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. 97 pp. Fort Collins, CO.

DeMars, C.J., and B.H. Roettgering. 1982. Western pine beetle. USDA Forest Service Forest 

Insect and Disease Leaflet 1. 8 pp.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2002. Revised: November 24, 2010. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 240 pp. 

Drake, W.M. 1910. A report on the Coconino National Forest. Unpublished report, Coconino 

National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.

Ehle, D.S.; Baker, W.L. 2003. Disturbance and stand dynamics in ponderosa pine forests in 

Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Ecological Monographs 73:543-566. 

Fairweather M.L., K. Barton, B. Geils, and M. Manthei. 2006. Aspen Dieback and Decline in 

Northern Arizona. National Forest Health Monitoring. USDA, Forest Service, 2006 

Poster Presentations. 

______. 2008. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National Forest. In: McWilliams, M. G. comp 

2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western International Forest Disease Work Conference; 

2007 October 15–19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, OR; Oregon Department of Forestry. 
References

404 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Fettig C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron, and J.T. Nowak. 

2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of 

bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management 238:24–53. 

Fiedler, C.E., S.F. Arno, and M.G. Harrington. 1996. Flexible silvicultural and prescribed burning 

approaches for improving health of ponderosa pine forests. In: Conference on adaptive 

ecosystem restoration and management: Restoration of Cordilleran conifer landscapes of 

North America. Pp 69–74. W.W. Covington and P. K. Wagner, eds. General Technical 

Report RM-GTR-278. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Friederici, P., ed. 2003. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Friederici, P. 2004. Establishing reference condition for southwestern ponderosa pine forest. 

Working papers in southwestern ponderosa pine forest restoration. Ecological Restoration 

Institute. Flagstaff, AZ. 16 pp. 

Frinkral, A.J., and A.M. Evans. 2008. Effects of thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743–2750. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for 

ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 

7:895–908. 

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, T.A. Heinlein, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington, and G. Vankamp. 2003. 

Mixed-severity fire regime in high-elevation forest of the Grand Canyon, AZ, USA. 

Landscape Ecology 18:465–486. 

Furniss R.L., and V.M Carolin. 1977. Western Forest Insects. USDA Forest Service Misc. Publ. 

No. 1339. 654 pp. Washington, DC.

Germain C.J., M.J. Weiss, and R.C. Loomis. 1972. Insect and disease conditions – 1972. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Forest Insect & Disease Bulletin 3(1):19. Albuquerque, 

NM.

Gill, S., G.S. Biging, and E.C. Murphy. 2000. Modeling conifer tree crown radius and estimating 

canopy cover. Forest Ecology and Management 126:405–416. 

Gitlin, A.R., C.M. Sthultz, M.A. Bowker, S. Stumpf , K.L. Paxton, K. Kennedy, A. Muñoz, J.K. 

Bailey, and T.G. Whitham. 2006. Mortality gradients within and among dominant plant 

populations as barometers of ecosystem change during extreme drought. Conservation 

Biology 20:1477–1486. 

Hawksworth, F.G., and D. Wiens. 1996. Dwarf mistletoes: biology, pathology, and systematics. 

USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 709. Washington, DC. 410 pp. 

Hessburg, P.F., and J.S. Beatty. 1985. Incidence, severity, and growth losses associated with 

ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe on the Coconino National Forest, AZ. U.S. Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, R3-85-12, 30 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 405

Hopkins, A.D. 1909. Practical information on the scolytid beetles of North American forests. 1. 

Bark Beetles in the genus Dendroctonus. Bulletin 83. USDA Bureau of Entomology, 

Washington, DC. 169 pp. 

Hurteau, M., and M. North. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based carbon storage under 

modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7:409–414. 

Hurteau, M.D., M.T. Stoddard, and P.Z. Fulé. 2011. The carbon costs of mitigating high-severity 

wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine. Global Change Biology, 17:1516–1521. 

Jennings, D.T., and R.E. Stevens. 1982. Southwestern pine tip moth. USDA Forest Service, 

Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 58.

Kaye, M.W., and T.W. Swetnam, 1999. An assessment of fire, climate, and Apache history in the 

Sacramento Mountains, NM, USA. Physical Geography 20:305–330. 

Kenaley, S.C., R.L. Mathiasen, and C.M. Daugherty. 2006. Selection of dwarf mistletoe-infected 

ponderosa pines by Ips species (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in northern Arizona. Western 

North American Naturalist 66(3):279–284. 

Kenaley, S.C., R.L. Mathiasen, and E.J. Harner. 2008. Mortality Associated with a Bark Beetle 

Outbreak in dwarf mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine stands in Arizona. Western Journal 

of Applied Forestry 23:113–120. 

Keyser, Chad E., and Gary E. Dixon, comps. 2008. (Revised February 3, 2010). Central Rockies 

(CR) Variant Overview – Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 66 

pp. 

Kolb, T.E., K.M. Holmberg, M.R. Wagner, and J.E. Stone. 1998. Regulation of ponderosa pine 

foliar physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree 

Physiology 18:375–381. 

Kolb, T.E., N. Guerard, R.W. Hofstetter, and M.R. Wagner. 2006. Attack preference of Ips pini on 

Pinus ponderosa in northern Arizona: tree size and bole position. Agricultural and Forest 

Entomology 8:295–303. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. 

Covington. 2006. Assessing targets for the restoration of herbaceous vegetation in 

ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14:548–560. 

Lessard G., D.T. Jennings. 1976. Southwestern pine tip moth damage to ponderosa pine 

reproduction. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Research Paper RM-168, 8 pp. Fort Collins, CO. 

Long, D.W., and M.R. Wagner. 1992. Effects of Southwestern pine tip moth and vegetation 

competition on ponderosa pine growth. Forest Science 38:173–186. 

Long, J.N., and F.W. Smith. 1984. Relation between size and density in developing stands: a 

description and possible mechanism. For. Ecol. And Management 7:191–206. 

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle 61:23–27. 
References

406 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Long, J.N., and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5:93–96. 

Lynch A.M., J.H. Anhold, and J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M.L. 

Fairweather. 2008a. Forest insect and disease activity on the Coconino N.F., 1918–2006. 

USDA Forest Service, Report for the Coconino N.F./Regional Analysis Team.

Lynch A.M., J.H. Anhold, and J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M.L. 

Fairweather. 2008b. Forest insect and disease activity on the Kaibab NF and Grand 

Canyon NP, 1918–2006. USDA Forest Service, Draft Report for the Kaibab NF/Regional 

Analysis Team.

Mast, J.N., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington, and A.E.M. Waltz. 1999. Restoration of presettlement age structure of an Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Ecological Applications 

9:228–239. 

Mast, J.N., T.T. Veblen, and Y.B. Linhart. 1998. Disturbance and climatic influences on age 

structure of ponderosa pine at the pine/grassland ecotone, Colorado Front Range. Journal 

of Biogeography 25:743–767. 

McMillin, Joel D. et al. 2011. Draft hazard rating for Ips beetles during drought in Arizona. 

Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Flagstaff, AZ. 

1 p. 

McMillin, Joel. 2012. Personal communication email: 2/13/2012. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest 

Health Protection, Flagstaff, AZ.

McCusker, N.A. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National Forests 

Silviculture Specialist Report. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Menzel, J.P., and W.W. Covington. 1997. Changes from 1876 to 1994 in a forest ecosystem near 

Walnut Canyon, northern Arizona. In: Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference of 

Research on the Colorado Plateau. Pp 151–172. C. van Riper III, and E.T. Deshler, eds. 

Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/NRNAU/NRTP-97/12. Dept. of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 256 pp. 

Moir, W.H. 1966. Influence of ponderosa pine on herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 47:1045–1048. 

Moir, W.H., G. Geils, M.A. Benoit, and D. Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests. In: Songbird ecology in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: A literature 

review. Pp 3–27. W.M. Block and D.M. Finch, tech. eds. General Technical Report RMGTR-292. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 152 pp. 

Moore, M.M., D.W. Huffman, P.Z. Fulé, W.W. Covington, and J.E. Crouse. 2004. Comparison of 

historical and contemporary forest structure and composition on permanent plots in 

southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest Science 50:62–176. 

Mueller R.C., C.M. Scudder, M.E. Porter, R.T. Trotter, C.A. Gehring, and T.G. Whitham. 2005. 

Differential tree mortality in response to severe drought: evidence for long-term 

vegetation shifts. Journal of Ecology 93:1085–1093. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 407

Naumburg, E., and L.E. DeWald. 1999. Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, 

light characteristics, and understory graminoid species presence and abundance. Forest 

Ecology and Management 124:205–215. 

Negrón, J.F., J.L Wilson, and J.A. Anhold. 2000. Stand conditions associated with roundheaded 

pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations in Arizona and Utah. Environmental 

Entomology 29:20–27. 

Negrón, J.F., J.D. McMillin, J.A. Anhold, and D. Coulson. 2009. Bark beetle-caused mortality in 

a drought-affected ponderosa pine landscape in Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 257:1353–1362. 

Noble, William O. et al. 2013. Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab NF Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. On 

file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Parmeter Jr., J.R. 1978. Forest stand dynamics and ecological factors in relation to dwarf 

mistletoe spread, impact, and control. In: Dwarf mistletoe control through forest 

management. R.F. Scharpf and J.R. Parmeter, tech. coords. April 11–13, 1978. Berkeley, 

DA. Berkeley, CA: General Technical Report PSW-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 16–30. 

Pearson, G.A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the Southwest: As developed by research 

and experimental practice. Agriculture Monograph No. 6. USDA Forest Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. 34 pp. 

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of 

Agricultural Research. 46:627–638. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 90 

pp. 

Rolf, J.A. 2001. Aspen fencing in Northern Arizona: A 15-year perspective. In: Sustaining aspen 

in western landscapes: symposium proceedings. Pp. 193–196. W.D. Shepperd, D. 

Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, and L.G. Eskew, compilers. June 13–15, 2000; 

Grand Junction, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO. 

Sánchez Meador, A.J., P.F. Parysow, and M.M. Moore. 2010. Historical stem-mapped permanent 

plots increase precision of reconstructed reference data in ponderosa pine forests of 

northern Arizona. Restoration Ecology 18:224–234. 

Scurlock, Dan, and Deborah M. Finch. 1997. A historical review. In: Songbird ecology in 

southwestern ponderosa pine forests: a literature review. Pp. 43–68. William M. Block, 

and Deborah M. Finch, tech. eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 152 pp. 
References

408 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Schubert, Gilbert H. 1974. Silviculture of southwestern ponderosa pine: The status of our 

knowledge. Res. Paper RM-123. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 71 p. 

Shepperd, W.D., and M.L. Fairweather. 1994. Impact of large ungulates in restoration of aspen 

communities in a southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem. In: Sustainable ecological 

approach to land management. Pp. 344–347. W.S. Covington and L.F. DeBano, eds. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General 

Technical Report RM-247, Fort Collins, CO. 

Shepperd, W.D., L.A. Asherin, and C.B. Edminister. 2002. Using individual tree selection 

silviculture to restore northern goshawk habitat: Lessons from a southwestern study. In: 

Beyond 2001: A Silvicultural Odyssey to Sustaining Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. 

Proceedings from the 2001 National Silviculture Workshop, May 6–10, 2002, Hood 

River, OR. PNW-GTR-546. 

Schmid, J.M., and S.A. Mata. 1992. Stand density and mountain pine beetle-caused mortality in 

ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service Research Note, RM-515. 

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata, R.A. Obedzinski. 1994. Stand hazard rating ponderosa pine stands for 

mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills. USDA Forest Service Research Note, RM-529. 

Society of American Foresters (SAF). 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD. 210 pp. 

______. 2005. Use of silviculture to achieve and maintain forest health on public lands. Position 

Statement Available at: http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/silviculture.pdf. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. In: 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium. Pp 11–32. C.D. Allen, ed. Los 

Alamos, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. 

______. 1994. Sustaining our aspen heritage into the twenty-first century. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region and Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 pp. 

______. 1996. Record of decision for amendment of forest plans, Arizona and New Mexico. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

______. 1997. Plant associations of Arizona and New Mexico. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 291 pp. 

______. 2000. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 1999. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-00-01: 17 pp. Albuquerque, NM.

______. 2002. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2001. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-02-01: 17 pp. Albuquerque, NM.

______. 2003. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2002. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-03-01: 33 pp. Albuquerque, NM.
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 409

______. 2004. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2003. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health, R3-04-02, 34 pp. 

Albuquerque, NM. 

______. 2006. Cultural Resources Management. Logging Railroads of the Coconino and Kaibab 

National Forests. Supplemental Report to a National Register of Historic Places Multiple 

Property Nomination. 1993. Report No. 19. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 

Flagstaff, AZ. 302 pp. 

______. 2007. Historic ponderosa pine stand structure of mollisol and mollic integrade soils on 

the Coconino National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ. Unpublished document on file at the 

Coconino National Forest Supervisors Office. 

______. 2008a. Historic ponderosa pine stand structure of mollisol and mollic integrade soils on 

the Kaibab National Forest. Williams, AZ. Unpublished document on file at the Kaibab 

National Forest Supervisors Office.

______. 2008b. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2007. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health, PR-R3-16-4, 47 pp. 

Albuquerque, NM. 

______. 2011. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2010. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health, PR-R3-16-7, 45 pp. 

Albuquerque, NM. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl: Vol. I. 

Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan First Revision (Strix 

occidentalis lucida). Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, 

NM, USA. 414 pp. 

Vandendriesche, Don, comp. 2010. A compendium of NFS regional vegetation classification 

algorithms. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Management Service Center. 74 pp. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an ecological factor in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of 

Forestry 49:93–98. 

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Woolsey, T S. Jr. 1911. Western yellow pine in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, 

Bulletin 101. Washington, DC.

Yasinski, F.M., and D.A. Pierce. 1958. Forest insect conditions in Arizona, New Mexico and west 

Texas—1957. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station 30, 10 pp. Fort Collins, CO.

Scenery

Abella, S.R. 2004. Tree thinning and prescribed burning effects on ground flora in Arizona 

ponderosa pine forests: a review. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 

36:68–76. 
References

410 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

_____. 2008. Managing oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: The status of our knowledge. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-218. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 27 pp. 

Abella, S.R., and J.D. Springer. 2008. Estimating soil seed bank characteristics in ponderosa pine 

forests using vegetation and forest-floor data. Research Note RMRS-RN-35. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 7 pp. 

Abella, S.R, and P.Z. Fulé . 2008. Fire Effects on Gambel Oak in Southwestern Ponderosa PineOak Forests. Res. Note RMRS RN-34. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 6 pp. 

Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Shulke, P.B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M.T. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern 

Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications 12(5):1418–

1433. 

Brown, Harry E. 1958. Gambel Oak in West-Central Colorado. Ecology. 39: 317–327. 

CLIMAS. 2011. Climate Change in the Southwest. Online: http://www.climas.arizona.edu/swclimate/climate-change. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30:129–164. 

_____. 1961. Patterns in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology 42:493–499 

Diggins, Corinne A. 2010. Modeling Forest Change, Bird Communities, and Management 

Alternatives on a Restored Ponderosa Pine Forest. Master’s Thesis. Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Fairweather, Mary Lou, Brian W. Giles, and Mike Manthei. 2007. Aspen Decline on the 

Coconino National Forest. Online: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/aspen_bib/506. 

Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Fiedler, C.E., S.F. Arno, and M.G. Harrington. 1996. Flexible silvicultural and prescribed burning 

approaches for improving health of ponderosa pine forests. In: Conference on adaptive 

ecosystem restoration and management: Restoration of Cordilleran conifer landscapes of 

North America. Pp 69–74. W.W. Covington and P.K. Wagner, eds. General Technical 

Report RM-GTR-278. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Fulé, P.Z. 2004. Changes in canopy fuels and potential fire behavior 1880–2040: Grand Canyon, 

AZ. Ecological Modeling 175(3):231–248. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for 

ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 

7:895–908. 

Guido, Zack. Extreme Events in the Southwest. CLIMAS. Online: 

http://www.climas.arizona.edu/feature-articles/sep-2011. Accessed July 12, 2012. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 411

Heinlein, T.A., M.M. Moore, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington. 2005. Fire history and stand 

structure of two ponderosa pine-mixed conifer sites: San Francisco Peaks, AZ, USA. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 14:307–320. 

Hessberg, P.F., and J.S. Beatty. 1985. Incidences, Severity and Growth Losses Associated with 

Ponderosa Pine Dwarf Mistletoe on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. R3-85-12. 30 pp. 

Johnson, E.A, K. Miyanishi, and J.M.H. Weir. 1998. Wildfires in Western Canadian Boreal 

Forest: Landscape Management and Ecological Patterns. Journal of Vegetation Science, 

9:603–610. 

Kruse, William H. 1992. Quantifying Wildlife Habitats Within Gambel Oak/Forest/Woodland 

Associations in Arizona. In: Ecology and Management of Oaks and Associated 

Woodlands: Perspectives in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. Pp. 

182–186. Peter F. Ffolliott, G.J. Gottfried, D.A. Bennett, C. Hernandez, V. Manuel, A. 

Ortega-Rubio, and H.R. Hamre, tech coords. April 27–30, 1992. Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-218. Ft Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Laughlin, D.C., and S.R. Abella. 2007. Abiotic and biotic factors explain independent gradients of 

plant community composition in ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Modeling 205:231–

240. 

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. 

Covington. 2006. Assessing targets for the restoration of herbaceous vegetation in 

ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14:548–560. 

Lynch, Ann M., J.A. Anhold, J.D. McMillin, S.M. Dudley, R.A. Fitzgibbon, and M. Fairweather. 

2008. Forest Insect and Disease Activity on the Coconino National Forest 1918–2006. 

Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.

McArthur, E.D, and J.R. Taylor. 2004. Chrysothamnus nausiosus (Pallas x Pursh) Britton. 

Asteraceae. In: Woodland Shrubs of the United States and its Territories: Thamnic 

Descriptions. J.K. Francis, ed. Vol. 1. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR26. Fort Collins, CO. 

Moir, W.H., B. Geils, M.A. Benoit, and D. Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests. In: Songbird ecology in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: A literature 

review. Pp 3–27. W.M. Block and D.M. Finch, tech. eds. General Technical Report RMGTR-292. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 152 pp. 

Neff, D.J., and N.W. Woolsey. 1979. Effects of Predation by Coyotes on Antelope Fawn Survival 

on Anderson Mesa, AZ. Special Report 8. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 36 pp. 

Noble, Bill O. 2012. Understory Response to Changes in Overstory Cover. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Pearson, G.A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the Southwest: As developed by research 

and experimental practice. Agriculture Monograph No. 6. USDA Forest Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. 34 pp. 
References

412 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Roccaforte, J.P., P.Z. Fulé, and W.W. Covington. 2008. Landscape-scale changes in canopy fuels 

and potential fire behavior following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 17(2):293–303. 

Rosenstock, S.S. 1998. Influence of Gambel oak on breeding birds in Northern Arizona. Condor 

100:485–492. 

Ryan, Robert L. 2005. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of Research on 

Aesthetics and Fuels Management. GTR NC-261. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, 

North Central Research Station. 58 pp. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. In: 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium; Los Alamos, NM. Pp 11–32. C. 

D. Allen, ed. General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp. 

Tisdale, E.W., and M. Hironaka. 1981. The sagebrush-grass ecoregion: A Review of the 

Ecological Literature. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station Contribution No. 

209. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 33 pp. 

______. 1975. National Forest Landscape Management. Vol. 2. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 

462. Online: http://naldr.nal.usda.gov/NALWeb/Agricola_Link.asp?Accession= 

CAT87208522. 

______. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 

2509.22. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.104 pp. 

______. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics: A Guide for Scenery Management, as revised. USDA 

Handbook 701. Online: http://library.rawlingsforestry.com/fs/landscape_aesthetics/. 

Accessed 7/12/2012. 

______. 2004. Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum-Scenery Management 

System Guidebook. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National 

Forest, Williams, AZ. 53 pp. 

______. 2007. Appendix J: Recommended SMS Refinements. USDA Forest Service. On file at 

Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. 33 pp. 

______. 2007a. Recreation Facility Analysis, Action Plan for Kaibab National Forest. 

Unpublished report. Available at Kaibab National Forest, Williams, AZ. 

______. 2008. Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/ 

landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5334653. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

______. 2008a. Recreation Facility Analysis, Action Plan for Coconino National Forest. 

Unpublished report. Available at Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ.

______. 2010. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/main/kaibab/ 

landmanagement/planning. Accessed July 12, 2012. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 413

______. 2012. 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Coconino NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ 

programs/nvum/. 

______. 2012b. 2005 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Coconino NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ 

programs/nvum/. 

______. 2012c. 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kaibab NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ 

programs/nvum/. 

______. 2012d. 2005 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kaibab NF. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/ 

programs/nvum/. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Van Wagner, C.E. 1993. Prediction of crown fire behavior in two stands of jack pine. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 23:442–449. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an ecological factor in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of 

Forestry 49:93–98. 

White, A.S. 1985. Pre-settlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine stand. 

Ecology 66:589–594. 

Woolsey Jr., T.S., 1911. Western yellow pine in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest Service 

Bulletin 101. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Socioeconomics

Arizona Department of Commerce. 2008. Arizona County Profiles. Online: 

http://www.azcommerce.com. Accessed June 6, 2011. 

Becker, D.R., D. Larson, and E.C. Lowell. 2009. Financial Considerations of Policy Options to 

Enhance Biomass Utilization for Reducing Wildfire Hazards. Forest Policy and 

Economics 11:628–635. 

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What Are Ecosystem Services?: The need for standardized 

environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 61(4):716–723. 

Combrink, T., W. Fox, and J. Peterson. 2012. Workforce Needs of the Four Forest Restoration 

Initiative Project: An Analysis. Northern Arizona University, Ecological Restoration 

Institute.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Gude, P.H., R. Rasker, and J. van den Noort. 2008. Potential for Future Development on FireProne Lands. Journal of Forestry 106(4):198–205. 

Horne, A., and R. Haynes. 1999. Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the 

Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-GTR453. April 1999.
References

414 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Jaworski, Delilah. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Socioeconomic Resource Report. Ms. 

On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 

Knotek, K., A.E. Watson, W.T. Borrie, J.G. Whitmore, and D. Turner. 2008. Recreation Visitor 

Attitudes Toward Management-ignited Prescribed Fires in the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex, Montana. Journal of Leisure Research 40(4):608–618. 

Kochi, I., G.H. Donovan, P.A.Champ, and J.B. Loomis. 2010a. The Economic Cost of Adverse 

Health Effects from Wildfire-Smoke Exposure: a review. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 19:803–817. 

Kochi, I., J. Loomis, P. Champ, and G. Donovan. 2010b. Health and Economic Impact of 

Wildfires: Literature review. USDA Forest Service.

Loomis, J., D. Griffin, E. Wu, and A. Gonzalez-Caban. 2002. Estimating the Economic Value of 

Big Game Habitat Production from Prescribed Fire Using a Time Series Approach. 

Journal of Forest Economics 8:119–129. 

Lowell, E.C., D.R. Becker, R. Rummer, D. Larson, and L. Wadleigh. 2008. An Integrated 

Approach to Evaluating the Economic Costs of Wildfire Hazard Reduction through Wood 

Utilization Opportunities in the Southwestern United States. Forest Science 54(3):273–

283. 

Mercer, D.E., J.M. Pye, J.P. Prestemon, D.T. Butry, and T.P. Holmes. 2000. Economic Effects of 

Catastrophic Wildfires: assessing effectiveness of fuel reduction programs for reducing 

the economic impacts of catastrophic forest fire events. Final Report for the Joint Fire 

Science Program.

Mercer, D.E., J.P. Prestemon, D.T. Butry, and J.M. Pye. 2007. Evaluating Alternative Prescribed 

Burning Policies to Reduce Net Economic Damages from Wildfire. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 89(1):63–77. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0. 

Morton, D.C., M.E. Roessing, A.E. Camp, and M.L. Tyrrell. 2003. Assessing the Environmental, 

Social, and Economic Impacts of Wildfire. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies, GISF Research Paper 001. 

Office of the President. 1994. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Population and Low-income Populations. Washington, DC: Executive 

Office of the President.

Prestemon, J.P., K.L. Abt, and R.J. Huggett Jr. 2008. Market Impacts of a Multiyear Mechanical 

Fuel Treatment Program in the U.S. Forest Policy and Economics 10:386–399. 

Rittmaster, R., W.L. Adamowicz, B. Amiro, and R.T. Pelletier. 2006. Economic Analysis of 

Health Effects from Forest Fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:868–877. 

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J. Russell. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. 

USDA Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute. 

Selig, M., D. Vosick, and J. Seidenberg. 2010. Four Forest Restoration Initiative Landscape 

Strategy: Economics and Utilization Analysis. Flagstaff, AZ: Four Forest Restoration 

Initiative Stakeholder Group. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 415

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011a. Local Area Personal Income, Table CA05. Online: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis. Accessed on May 10, 2011. 

______. 2011b. Employment by NAICS Industry, Table CA25N. Economic Profile System – 

Human Dimensions Toolkit Online: http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt. 

Accessed on May 12, 2012. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment. Online: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau. Accessed June 2, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. American FactFinder. Online: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 

May 10, 2011. 

______. 2000. American FactFinder. Online: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed May 10, 

2011. 

______. 2010. American FactFinder2. Online: http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed February 

29, 2012. 

USDA. 1997. Environmental Justice Departmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Office of the 

Chief Information Officer. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and 

Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of 

Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River 

Basin DEIS. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station.

______. 2008a. Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino 

National Forest.

______. 2008b. Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National 

Forest.

______. 2011a. Coconino Visitor Use Report. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/. Accessed February 29, 2012. 

______. 2011b. Kaibab Visitor Use Report. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/. Accessed February 29, 2012. 

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (WFLC). 2010. The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western 

U.S. Report of the WFLC. 

White Mountain Independent (WMI). 2011. Two Charged with Causing Arizona’s Wallow Fire. 

Online: http://www.wmicentral.com. Accessed October 26, 2011. 

Soils 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and USDA. 2008. Intergovernmental agreement 

between the State of Arizona and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Southwestern Region. February 15, 2008. 

Brewer, Dave, Rodney Jorgensen, Lewis Munk, and Wayne Robbie. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Survey of the Kaibab National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 319 

pp. 
References

416 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Brewer, Dave, et al. 2000. Combining Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Units to Assist in the 

Analysis of Existing Conditions for Forest Restoration at the Landscape Scale. 24 pp. 

Brown, James, et al. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the 

Recovering Forest. RMRS GTR 105. 16 pages 

Covington, W.W., and L.F. DeBano. 1990. Effects of fire on pinyon–juniper soils. In: Effects of 

Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. J.S. Krammes, tech. coord. USDA 

Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Pp. 8–86. 

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed 

burning in ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 54:175–191. 

Elliot, William J., Ina Sue Miller, Lisa Audin, eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 pp. 

Elliot, William J., D Page-Dumroese, and P.R. Robichaud. 1999. The effects of forest 

management on erosion and soil productivity. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil 

Quality and Erosion Interaction, Keystone, CO, July 7, 1996. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water 

Conservation Society. 16 pp. Online: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/docs/ 

docs/Elliot_1-57444-100-0.html. Accessed March 24, 2010.

Fleishman, Dick. 1996. Best management practices monitoring U-Bar and Merritt Forest Product 

sale. USDA Forest Service Blue Ridge Ranger District. Letter file code 2520 and 2450. 

16 pp. 

Fleishman, Richard, 2005. Monitoring of Best Management Practices-Pack Rat Salvage Sale. 

USDA Forest Service Mogollon Rim Ranger District. Letter file code 2520.

Froehlich, H.A., D.E. Aulerich, and R. Curtis. 1981. Designing skid trail systems to reduce soil 

impacts from tractive logging machines. Forest Research Lab, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. Research Paper 44. 15 pp. 

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, and Theresa B. Jain, tech. eds. 2004. Science basis for 

changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 43 pp.

Graham, Russell T., Alan E. Harvey, Martin F. Jurgensen, Theresa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn, and 

Deborah S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the 

Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 12 pp. 

Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. 2001. Forest 

roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, 

OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 pp. 

Huffman, D. 2010. Coarse Woody Debris in Pinyon-Juniper. 

Jagow, Peter. 1994. Best Management Practices monitoring forms for the Anchor Timber Sale and 

Hospital Timber Sale. From Arizona Department of Quality, 10 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 417

Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and 

chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. 

Restoration Ecology 12:52–62. 

Lata, Mary. 2013. Fire Ecology, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Report, Four-Forest Restoration 

Initiative. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

McCusker, N.A. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab National Forests 

Silviculture Specialist Report. Ms. On file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record. 

Miller, Greg, N., Ambos, P. Boness, D. Reyher, G. Robertson, K. Scalzone, R. Steinke, and T. 

Subirge. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 405 pp. Online: 

http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/tes/tes.html. 

Neary, Dan G., K. Ryan, and L. DeBano. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on 

Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 4. Fort Collins, CO. 250 

pp. 

Passovoy, Davis, Fulé, Pete, 2006. Snag and woody debris dynamics following severe wildfires in 

northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 246 pp. 

Robichaud, P.R., Brown, R.E. 1999. Revised 2000. What happened after the smoke cleared: 

onsite erosion rates after a wildfire in eastern Oregon. In: Olsen, D.S.; Potyondy, J.P., eds. 

Proceedings: wildland hydrology conference. 1999. June. Bozeman, MT. Hernon, VA: 

American Water Resource Association: 419–426. 

Seymour, G., and A. Tecle. 2004. Impact of slash pile size and burning on ponderosa pine forest 

soil physical characteristics. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science

37(2):74–82. 

Steinke, Rory W. 2007a. Historic Ponderosa Pine Stand Structure of Mollisols, and Mollic 

Integrade Soils on the Coconino National Forest (Internal Study). 

_____. 2007b. Historic Ponderosa Pine Stand Structure of Mollisols, and Mollic Integrade Soils 

on the Kaibab National Forest (Internal Study). 

_____. 2013. Soil Resources Specialist’s Report, 4 Forest Restoration Initiative. Ms. On file at the 

Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 425 pp. 

USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1999. National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. WEPP: 

Road Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. 

Researchers Elliot, Hall, and Scheele. Draft December 1999. Moscow, Idaho. Technical 

Documentation Web site online: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/ 

wepproaddoc.html. 

______. Agricultural Research Service. 2006. National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. 

Moscow, Idaho. Water Erosion Prediction Project Web site at 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. Elliot et. al. 9/22/2006. 

USDA Forest Service.1984. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey (TES) Handbook. Chapter 5. 
References

418 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

______. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and amendments. 

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 270 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/projects/plan-revision-2006/current-plan.shtml. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest 

Service. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 

______. 1991a. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.19. Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook. 

______. 1991b. Soil Management Handbook 2509.18-91-1. WO Amendment. Chapter 2.2, Soil 

Quality Monitoring. 

______.1994a Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. PageDumroese. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. 

Res. Pap. Int-477. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 13 pp. 

_____. 1994b. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. Int477. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 13 pp.

_____. 1999. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.18. Region 3 Supplement No. 2509.18-99-1. 

______. 2000. WEPP Technical Documentation. Rocky Mountain Research Station and San 

Dimas Tech Center. Online: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/ 

distweppdoc.html. 

______. 2009a. National Technology and Development Program. Soil-Disturbance Field Guide. 

0819 1815. 

______. 2009b. Soil-Disturbance Field Guide. National Technology & Development Program. 

0819 1815. 

______. 2010a. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500-2010-1. (Supersedes FSM 2550). 

______. 2010b. Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. Potyondy. 

Geier et. al. 85 pages. Available at http://wwwtest.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed. 

______. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework Implementation Guide. Online: 

http://wwwtest.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed. 

______. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality on National Forest System 

Lands. Technical Guide. Washington Office. April 2012. FS-990a. 165 pp. 

Transportation 

Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 212.1 Definitions. Online http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/212-1-

definitions-19770981. 

Fleishman, Dick. 2013. Transportation Specialist’s Report, Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, 

Coconino and Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project 

Record. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 419

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Chapter 10 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58—

Transportation System Maintenance Handbook Amendment No. 7709.58-95-1 Effective 

July 28, 1995. 19 pp. 

______. 2008. Travel Analysis Report for the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. 

Southwestern Region. 136 pp. 

______. 2010. Travel Analysis Process Report Coconino National Forest. Southwestern Region. 

20 pp Online: http://www.redrockcountry.org/about-us/tmr/tmr-documents/tap-cnf-2009-

03-12.pdf. 

______. 2010a. Travel Analysis Process Report, Kaibab National Forest Williams RD. 

Southwestern Region. 68 pp.

______. 2010b. Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

Williams Ranger District Travel Management Project. Kaibab National Forest. 21 pp. 

______. 2011. Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

Tusayan Ranger District Travel Management Project. Kaibab National Forest. 22 pp. 

______. 2011a. Record of Decision (ROD) Travel Management Plan Coconino National Forest. 

76 pp. 

______. 2012. Field Review of 4FRI Temporary Roads and Road Systems—4FRI First EIS Area. 

9 pp. Unpublished internal document.

Watershed

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Intergovernmental agreement between the 

State of Arizona and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern 

Region. February 15, 2008. 

______. 2010. Lake Mary Regional TMDL for Mercury in Fish Tissue. Upper Lake Mary, Lower 

Lake Mary, Soldiers Lake, Soldiers Annex Lake, and Lower Long Lake; Little Colorado 

River Watershed; Coconino County, AZ. 53 pp. 

______. 2010. Oak Creek and Spring Creek, Verde River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads 

for Escherichia coliform; Coconino County, AZ. 46 pp. 

Baker, M.B. Jr., and P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Interdisciplinary land use along the Mogollon Rim. In: 

Baker, M.B., Jr., comp. History of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pp. 27–34. 

Benavides-Solorio, Juan de Dios, and Lee H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of 

post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire14:1–18.

Betts, E.F., and J.B. Jones. 2009. Impact of wildfire on stream nutrient chemistry and ecosystem 

metabolism in boreal forest catchments of interior Alaska. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine 

Research 41:407–417. DOI: 10.1657/1938-4246-41.4.407. 
References

420 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of 

vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. 55: 3–

23. 

Brewer, David G., Rodney K. Jorgensen, Lewis P. Munk, Wayne A. Robbie, and Janet L. Travis. 

1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County and 

Part of Yavapai County. USDA Forest Service. 319 pp. 

Brown, T.M. 2002. Short-term total suspended-solid concentrations resulting from stream 

crossing obliteration in the Clearwater National Forest. M.S. Thesis. University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 107 pp.

Brown, H.E., M.B. Baker Jr., J.J. Rogers, W.P. Clary, J.L. Kovner, F.R. Larson, C.C. Avery, and 

R.E. Campbell. 1974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other multiple use 

values on ponderosa pine forest lands. Res. Pap. RM-129. Fort Collins, CO. 

Brown, J.K., M.A. Marsden, K.C. Ryan, and E.D. Reinhardt. 1985. Predicting duff and woody 

fuel consumed by prescribed fire in the northern Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP337. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 23 pp. 

Burton, Timothy A. 1997. Effects of Basin-Scale Timber Harvest on Water Yield and Peak 

Streamflow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 6. 

CARB. 2007. California Air Resources Board. Online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm. 

Childs, Michael R. 2013. Fisheries Specialist Report, Four Forest Restoration Initiative. Ms. On 

file at Coconino NF, 4FRI project record .103 pp. 

City of Flagstaff. 2010. Report to the Consumer on Water Quality. January 1, 2010–December 31, 

2010. 10 pp. Online: http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/13174. 

______. 2012. Where does our water come from? City of Flagstaff Official Web site. Online: City 

of Flagstaff Official Website. Access May 21, 2012. 

Covington, W.W., and L.F. DeBano. 1990. Effects of fire on pinyon–juniper soils. In: Effects of 

Fire Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. J.S. Krammes, tech. coord. USDA 

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-191. Pp. 78–86. 

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1986. Effect of periodic burning on soil nitrogen 

concentrations in ponderosa pine. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 50:452–457. 

______. 1992. Soil mineral changes following prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 54:175–191. 

Croke, J.C., and S.P. Mockler. 2001. Gully initiation and road to stream linkage in a forested 

catchment in southeast Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:1–13.

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire's effects on ecosystems. New York: John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. 333 pp. 

DeBano, L.F., 1981. Water repellant soils: a state-of-the-art. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-46, illus. 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Station. USDA Forest Service. Berkley, CA. 21 

pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 421

DeBano, L.F., and J.S. Krammes. 1966. Water repellent soils and their relation to wildfire 

temperatures. Bulletin of the I.A.S.H., XI(2):14–19. 

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed 

Science 48:255–265. 

Doerr, S.H., R.A. Shakesby, and R.P.D. Walsh. 2000. Soil water repellency: its causes, 

characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Science Reviews 51:33–

65. 

Elliot, W.J., D.L. Scheele, and D.E. Hall. 2000. The Forest Service WEPP interfaces. Paper No. 

005021. St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE. 9 pp. 

Elliot, William J., Ina Sue Miller, and Lisa Audin, eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 299 pp. 

Elson, T.E. 1972. Williams Municipal Watershed Hydrologic Survey and Analysis for the USDA 

Forest Service. 172 pp. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Online: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. 

Ffolliott, P.F., G.S. Gottfried, and M.B. Baker, Jr. 1989. Water yield from forest snowpack 

management: research findings in Arizona and New Mexico. Water Resources Research 

25:1999–2007. 

Foltz, R.B., and K.A. Yanosek. 2005. Effects of road obliteration on stream water quality. In: 

Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts: Engineering, Ecological, and 

Economic Challenges. Proceedings of the 2005 Watershed Management Conference. G. 

E. Moglen, ed. July 19–22, 2005. Williamsburg, VA. Sponsored by Environmental and 

Water Resources Institute (EWRI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 12 pp. 

Gottfried, G.J., and L.F. DeBano. 1990. Streamflow and water quality responses to preharvest 

prescribed burning in an undisturbed ponderosa pine watershed. In: Effects of fire 

management of southwestern natural resources. J.S. Krammes, tech. coord. Gen. Tech. 

Report RM-191. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership. 2010. Annual Report. 2010. Online: 

http://www.gffp.org/docs/GFFP_2010_Annual_Report.pdf Accessed May 16, 2012. 

Guido, Zack. 2008. Southwest Climate Change Network. Online: 

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire. 

Hendricks, B.A., and J.M. Johnson. 1944. Effects of fire on steep mountain slopes in central 

Arizona. Journal of Forestry 42:568–571. 

Ice, George. 2004. History of Innovative Best Management Practice Development and its Role in 

Addressing Water Quality Limited Waterbodies. Journal of Environmental Engineering 

2(6):684–689. 
References

422 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Quin, and M. Manning. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. 996 pp. 

Landsberg, J.D. and Tiedemann, A.R., 2000. Fire Management, in Drinking Water from Forests 

and Grasslands, a Synthesis of Scientific Literature, G.E. Dissmeyer, ed., Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS39.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Libohova, Zamir. 2005. Effects of thinning and wildfire on sediment production rates, channel 

morphology, and water quality in the Upper South Platte River Watershed. M.S. Thesis. 

Colorado State University. 261 pp. 

Luce, C.H., and T.W. Cundy, 1992. Modification of the kinematic wave-Philip infiltration 

overland flow model. Water Resources Research. 28(4):1179–1186. 

MacDonald, Christopher. 2013. Water Quality and Riparian Areas Specialist Report, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab National Forest. Ms. On file at the Coconino 

NF 4FRI Project Record. 185 pp. 

MacDonald, L.H., and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for 

Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Rep. No. 196. Fort Collins, CO. 

Colorado State University. 65 pp. 

MacDonald, L.H., D.B. Coe, and S.E. Litschert. 2005. Assessing cumulative watershed effects in 

the central Sierra Nevada: Hillslope measurements and catchment-scale modeling. In: 

Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium. D.D. Murphy and P.A. Stine, eds. 

October 7–10, 2002. Kings Beach, CA. PSW-GTR-193. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Pp. 149–157. 

Megahan, W.F. 1978. Erosion processes on steep granitic road fills in central Idaho. Proceedings 

of the Soil Science Society of America Journal. 42(2): 350–357. 

Miller, Cory A. 2007. Analysis of Current and Historical Surface Flows and Hydrologic Response 

to Restoration Treatments in the Upper Lake Mary Watershed, Arizona. M.S. Thesis. 

Northern Arizona University. 78 pp. 

Miller, Greg, N., Ambos, P. Boness, D. Reyher, G. Robertson, K. Scalzone, R. Steinke, and T. 

Subirge. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 405 pp. Online: 

http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/tes/tes.html. 

Montgomery, D.M. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope stability. Water 

Resources Research 30:1925–1932. 

Mullen, Regina M., Abraham E. Springer, and Thomas E. Kolb. 2006. Complex Effects of 

Prescribed Fire on Restoring the Soil Water Content in a High-Elevation Riparian 

Meadow, AZ. Restoration Ecology 14(2):242–250. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality—Aggregate Stability. 

Soil Quality Information Sheet. Rangeland Sheet 3. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 423

Neary, Daniel G., K. Ryan, and L. DeBano. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on 

Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 4. Fort Collins, CO. 250 

pp. 

Ojima, D.S., D.S. Schimel, W.J. Parton, and C.E. Owensby. 1994. Long- and short-term effects of 

fire on nitrogen cycling in tallgrass prairie. Biogeochemistry 24:67–84.

Pinkham, Richard, and Bill Davis. 2002. North Central Arizona Water Demand Study. A report 

submitted to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council. Rocky Mountain Institute. 

178 pp. 

Potyondy, John P., and Theodore W. Geier. 2010. Watershed Condition Classification Technical 

Guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technical Guide FS-978. 

41 pp. 

Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research 20(11):1753–1761. 

Rich, L.R., and G.J. Gottfried. 1976. Water yields resulting from treatments on the Workman 

Creek experimental watersheds in Central Arizona. Water Resources Research 

12(5):1053–1060. 

Robichaud, P.R., T.R. Lillybridge, and J.W. Wagenbrenner. 2006. Effects of post fire seeding and 

fertilizing on hillslope erosion in north-central Washington, USA. Catena 67:56–67.

Robichaud, P.R., and T.A. Waldrop. 1994. A comparison of surface runoff and sediment yields 

from low- and high-severity site preparation burns. Water Resources Bulletin. 30(1):27–

34. 

Robichaud, P.R. 1996. Spatially-varied erosion potential from harvested hillslopes after 

prescribed fire in the interior Northwest. Dissertation. University of Idaho. Moscow, ID. 

219 pp. 

_____. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in northern Rocky Mountain 

forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology 231–232(1–4):220–229. 

Robichaud, Pete R.; MacDonald, Lee H.; Foltz, Randy B. 2010. Fuel management and erosion. 

Chapter 5 in: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 79–100. 

Ryan, M.G., and W.W. Covington. 1986. The effect of a prescribed burn in ponderosa pine on 

inorganic nitrogen concentrations of mineral soil. Research Note RM-464. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 5 pp. 

Savage, S.M. 1974. Mechanism of fire-induced water repellency in soil. Soil Science Society of 

America Proceedings 38: 652–657. 

Savage, S.M., J.P. Martin, J. Letey. 1969. Contribution of some soil fungi to natural and heatinduced water repellency in sand. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 33:405–

409. 
References

424 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Seager, R., R. Burgman, Y. Kushnir, A. Clement, E. Cook, N. Naik, and J. Miller. 2008. Tropical 

Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an 

Atmosphere Model Forced by Coral-Reconstructed SSTs. Journal of Climate 21:6175–

6190. 

Springer, A.E., and L.E. Stevens. 2008. Spheres of discharge of springs. Hydrogeology Journal 

(2009)17: 83–93. DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0341-y.

Springer, A.E., and T. Kolb. 2000. Ponderosa pine water balance at Hart Prairie: Role of 

herbaceous transpiration. Water Resources Research Center Annual Technical Report FY 

2000. 66 pp. 

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176(1/4):79–95.

Steinke, R. 2013. Soil Resources Specialist’s Report, 4 Forest Restoration Initiative. Ms. On file 

at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 425 pp. 

Stevens, L.E., J.D. Ledbetter, and A.E. Springer. 2012. Sky Islands Alliance Springs Inventory 

and Assessment Training Manual, Version 2.0. Springs Stewardship Institute. Museum of 

Northern Arizona. Flagstaff. http://springstewardship.org/workshops.html. 

Swank, W.T., L.F. DeBano, and D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil 

and water. In: The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the 

National Forest System. Russell Burns, tech. comp. GTR-WO-55. Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service. Pp.79–106. 

Thomsen, Bert W. 1969. Surface Water Supply for the City of Williams, Arizona. M.S. Thesis 

submitted to the Committee on Hydrology and Water Resources. University of Arizona. 

55 pp. 

Tiedemann, A.R., and T.D. Anderson. 1980. Combustion losses of sulfur from native plant 

materials and forest litter. In: Proceedings Sixth Conference on Fire and Forest 

Meteorology. April 22–24, 1980. Society of American Foresters. Pages 220–227. 

Tiedemann, Arthur R., Carol E. Conrad, and John H. Dieterich. 1979. Effects of fire on water: a 

state-of-knowledge review. In: General Technical Report WO-10. USDA Forest Service. 

Troendle, Charles A., Marc S. Wilcox, Greg S. Bevenger, and Laurie S. Porth. 2001. The Coon 

Creek Water Yield Augmentation Project: implementation of timber harvesting 

technology to increase streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management 143:179–187. 

Truebe, M., and G. Evans. 1994. Lowell surfacing thickness design test road: Final report. 

Federal Highway Forest Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. San 

Dimas, CA. 108 pp. 

USDA. 2010. Agriculture Research Service, Water Erosion Prediction Project Website. Online: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10621. Accessed July 15, 2010. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

amendments. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 270 pp. Online: 

http://www.redrockcountry.org/about-us/fpr/current-forest-plan-w-amends.pdf. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 425

2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive 

Weeds, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Forest Service Southwestern Region. 

______. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050003.pdf. 

______. 1997. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. Soil 

Quality Institute; Grazing Lands Technology Institute. 

______. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook 

2509.22. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 83 pp. 

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2005. 70 FR 68288, Nov. 9, 2005, unless 

otherwise noted. Code of federal regulations 212, Subpart B. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2006. North Central Arizona Water Supply Study – Report of 

Findings. Denver, CO. 153 pp. Online: 

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/ncawss/NCAWSSP1NOAPP.pdf

______. 1737-9. BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737, Service Center, CO. 60 pp. 

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with 

stream networks in two forested basins in the western Cascades of Oregon. Water 

Resources Bulletin 32:1195–1207. 

Wildlife

Abella, S.R. 2008. Managing Gambel oak in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: The status of 

our knowledge. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-218. 

Abella, S.R., and P.Z. Fulé. 2008. Changes in Gambel oak densities in southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests since Euro-American settlement. Research Note RMRS-RN-36. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Austin, W., K. Day, S. Franklin, J. Humphrey, W.G. Hunt, C. Parish, R. Sieg, and K. Sullivan. 

2007. Review of the second five years of the California condor reintroduction program in 

the Southwest. Southwest Condor Working Group and the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service Arizona Ecological Services Office, Flagstaff. 87 pp. 

Arizona Department of Game and Fish. 2011a. California Condor Recovery. 1 page. Online: 

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor.shtml. Accessed April 25, 2011. 

_____. 2011b. The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder 

Input. 52 pp. 

Arnold, J.F. 1950. Changes in ponderosa pine bunchgrass ranges in northern Arizona resulting 

from pine regeneration and grazing. J. For: 118–126. 

Bagne, K.E., K.L. Purcell, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2008. Prescribed fire, snag population dynamics, 

and avian nest site selection. Forest Ecology and Management 255:99–105. 
References

426 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Barlow, Jon C., Sheridan N. Leckie, and Colette T. Baril. 1999. Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/447doi:10.2173/bna.447. Accessed on September 

18, 2012. 

Batista, J., T. Piechota, D. James, and K. Stave. 2002. Literature Review Dust Suppression and Its 

Environmental Impacts, Prepared for the Expert Panel on Potential Environmental 

Impacts of Dust Suppressants: “Avoiding Another Times Beach”. University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechard, Marc J., and Josef K. Schmutz. 1995. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/172doi:10.2173/bna.172. Accessed September 18, 

2012. 

Bechard, Marc J., C. Stuart Houston, Jose H. Sarasola, and A. Sidney England. 2010. Swainson's 

Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265doi:10.2173/bna.265. Accessed September 18, 

2012. 

Beier, P., E.C. Rogan, M.F. Ingraldi, and S.S. Rosenstock. 2008. Does forest structure affect 

reproduction of northern goshawks in ponderosa pine forests? Journal of Applied 

Ecology 45:342–350. 

Beier, P., and M.F. Ingraldi. 2012. Commentary: There is no evidence that the Forest Service’s 

goshawk recommendations improve nest productivity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:153–

154. 

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Kaufman Field Guide to Mammals of North 

America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004. 352 pp. 

Brown, D.E., and R. Davis. 1998. Terrestrial bird and mammal distribution changes in the 

American Southwest, 1890–1990. Pages 47–64 in B. Tellman, editor. The future of arid 

grasslands: identifying issues, seeking solutions. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Brown, P.M.; M.W. Kaye, L. Huckaby, and C. Baisan. 2001. Fire history along environmental 

gradients in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico: Influences of local patterns and 

regional processes. Ecoscience 8:115–126. 

Capinera, J.A. 2010. Insects and Wildlife: Arthropods and Their Relationships with Wild 

Vertebrate Animals. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. 486 pp. 

Chambers, C.L. 2002. Forest management and the dead wood resource in ponderosa pine forests: 

effects on small mammals. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 

_____. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. Personal communications. Professor, wildlife ecology, School of 

Forestry, Northern Arizona University.
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 427

Chambers, C.L., and J.N. Mast. 2005. Ponderosa pine snag dynamics and cavity excavation 

following wildfire in northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 216:227–240. 

Chambers, C.L., and R.R. Doucett. 2008. Diet of the Mogollon Vole as Indicated by StableIsotope Analysis (C13 and N15). Western North American Naturalist 68(2) pp. 153–160. 

Chan-McLeod. 2003, as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

(Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, 

Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. Appendices A–M.

Cicero, C. 2000. Juniper Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/485bdoi:10.2173/bna.485, 

accessed on September 18, 2012.

CLIMAS. 2011. Climate Change in the Southwest. Online: http://www.climas.arizona.edu/swclimate/climate-change. Accessed April, 2012. 

Cockrum, E.L. 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona: their taxonomy and distribution. Univ. of 

Ariz. Press, Tucson, AZ. 276 pp. 

Corbett, J. 2008. Report on evaluation of the abandoned mine features on the Kaibab National 

Forest Tusayan District, AZ. Final report from Bat Conservation International to the 

Regional Environmental Engineer, Region 3 of the U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, 

NM. 7 pp. 

Corman, T., and C. Wise-Gervais. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico 

Press. Albuquerque, NM. 636 pp. 

Dargan, C.M. 1991. Roost site characteristics of bald eagles wintering in north-central Arizona. 

M.S. Thesis, Northern Arizona University, 73 pp. 

Delaney, D.K., and T.G. Grubb. 2003. Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on Northern Spotted 

Owls: 2002 Results. A Report to the State of California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Contract Number No. 

4391Z9-0-0055. 

Dewey, S.R., and P.L. Kennedy. 2001. Effects of supplemental food on parental-care strategies 

and juvenile survival of Northern Goshawks. Auk 118:352-365. 

Dodd, N.L., S.S. Rosenstock, C.R. Miller, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 1998. Tassel-eared squirrel 

population dynamics in Arizona: index techniques and relationships to habitat conditions. 

AGFD Research Branch Technical Report 27. Phoenix, AZ. 

Dodd, N.L., R.E. Schweinsburg, and S. Boe. 2006. Landscape-scale forest habitat relationships to 

tassel-eared squirrel populations: Implications for ponderosa pine forest restoration. 

Restoration Ecology 14:537–547. 

Dixon, G.E. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management 

Service Center. 240 pp. (Revised: November 24, 2010). 
References

428 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Driscoll, J.T., K.V. Jacobson, G.L. Beatty, J.S. Canaca, and J.G. Koloszar. 2006. Conservation 

assessment and strategy for the bald eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program Technical Report 173. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

England, A.S., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1993. Bendire’s Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/071doi:10.2173/bna.71. Accessed August 30, 

2012 and September 18, 2012. 

Fairweather, M., Geils, B., and Manthei, M. 2008. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. In: McWilliams, M. G. comp 2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western International 

Forest Disease Work Conference; 2007 October 15–19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, OR; Oregon 

Department of Forestry. 

Ffolliott, P.F., and G.J. Gottfried. 1991. Natural tree regeneration after clearcutting in Arizona’s 

ponderosa pine forests: two long-term case studies. Res. Note RM-507. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 6 pp. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for 

ecosystem management of Southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications, 

7:895–908. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, H.B. Smith, J.D. Springer, T.A. Heinlein, K.D. Huisinga, and M.M. 

Moore. 2002a. Comparing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, AZ. Forest 

Ecology and Management 170:19–41. 

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, M.M. Moore, T.A. Heinlein, and A.E.M. Waltz. 2002b. Natural 

variability in forests of the Grand Canyon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 29:31–47. 

Fulé, P.Z., and J.E. Crouse, J.P. Roccaforte, and E.L. Kalies. 2012. Do thinning and/or burning 

treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine dominated forests help restore 

natural fire behavior? Forest Ecology and Management 269:68–81. 

Furniss, Michael J., Brian P. Staab, Sherry Hazelhurst, Catherine F. Clifton, Kenneth B. Roby, 

Bonnie L. Ilhadrt, Elizabeth B. Larry, Albert H. Todd, Leslie M. Reid, Sarah J. Hines, 

Karen A. Bennett, Charles H. Luce, and Pamela J. Edwards. 2010. Water, climate change, 

and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR812. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 75 pp. 

Ganey, J.L. 1999. Snag density and composition of snag populations on two national forests in 

northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 117:169–178. 

Ganey, J.L. 2012. Personal communications. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Ganey, J.L., and S.C. Vojta. 2005. Changes in snag populations in Northern Arizona mixed 

conifer and Ponderosa pine forests, 1997–2002. Forest Science 51:396–405. 

_____. 2007. Modeling snag dynamics in northern Arizona mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine 

forests. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-66WWW.Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 429

_____2011. Tree mortality in drought-stressed mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests, 

Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 261 (2011) 162–168. 

_____. 2012. Trends in Snag Populations in Drought-stressed Mixed-conifer and Ponderosa Pine 

Forests, 1997–2007. International Journal of Forestry Research. 

Ganey, J.L., and Carol L. Chambers. 2011. A reconnaissance of small mammal communities in 

Garland and Government Prairies, Arizona. Western North American Naturalist 71: 151–

157. 

Ganey, Joseph L., James P. Ward, Jr., and David W. Willey, David W. 2011. Status and ecology of 

Mexican spotted owls in the Upper Gila Mountains recovery unit, Arizona and New 

Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-256WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 94 pp. 

George, T.L., S. Zack, and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 2005. A comparison of bird species composition 

and abundance between late- and mid-seral ponderosa pine forests. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-198. 

Gilbert-Norton, L., R. Wilson, J.R. Stevens, and K.H. Beard. 2010. A meta-analytic review of 

corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24:660–668. 

Glinski, R.L. 1998. The Raptors of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. pp. 

105–108. 

Greenwald, D.N., C. Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K.F. Suckling, and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A review 

of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest 

management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33:120–128. 

Grubb, T.G., and C.E. Kennedy. 1982. Bald eagle winter habitat on the National Forest System in 

the Southwest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Wildlife Unit Technical 

Series. 116 pp.

Grubb, T.G., S.J. Nagiller, W.L. Eakle, and G.A. Goodwin. 1989. Winter roosting patterns of bald 

eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in north-central Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 

34:453–459. 

Guzy, Michael J., and Peter E. Lowther. 2012. Black-throated Gray Warbler (Setophaga 

nigrescens), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/319doi:10.2173/bna.319. Accessed September 18, 

2012. 

Hedwall, S.J. 2011 and 2012. Personal communications. Senior Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Arizona Ecological Services Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Higgins, B.J. 2008. Personal communications. Forest Planner, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, 

AZ.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1971. Mammals of Grand Canyon. The University of Illinois Press. 183 pp. 

_____.1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press. 602 pp. 
References

430 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Holden, Z.A., P. Morgan, M.G. Rollins, and R.G. Wright. 2006. Ponderosa pine snag densities 

following multiple fires in the Gila Wilderness, NM. Forest Ecology and Management 

221:140–146. 

Huffman, D.W., and M.M. Moore. 2004. Responses of Fendler ceanothus to overstory thinning, 

prescribed fire, and drought in an Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management 198:105–115. 

Hurley, J.F., H. Salwasswer, and K. Shimamoto. 1982 Fish and wildlife habitat capability models 

and special habitat criteria. California and Nevada Wildlife Transactions. 4 pp. 

Jacobson, K.V., J.S. Canaca, and J.T. Driscoll. 2005. Arizona bald eagle management program 

2005 summary report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 

237. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Joshi, P. 2009. Night Roosts of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus luecocephalus) Wintering in Northern 

Arizona. Thesis. Northern Arizona University. 

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, et al. 2008. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources. In: S.H. Julius, J.M. West, J.S. Baron, et al. 

(editors). Washington, DC., U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research: 3-1 to 3-127. 

Kalies, E.L., C.L. Chambers, and W.W. Covington. 2010. Wildlife responses to thinning and 

burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests: a meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and 

Management 259:333–342. 

Kalies, E.L., B.G. Dickson, C.L. Chambers and W.W. Covington. 2012. Community occupancy 

responses of small mammals to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine forests, northern 

Arizona, USA. Ecological Applications, 22(1). pp. 204–217. 

Kunzler, L.M.; Harper, K.T. 1980. Recovery of Gambel oak after fire in central Utah. Great Basin 

Naturalist. 40:127–130. 

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Leonard, A. 2012. Kaibab National Forest’s Climate Change Approach for Plan Revision. 

Unpublished report. Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Williams, AZ. 

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle 61:23–27. 

Marlon, J.R., P.J. Bartlein, M.K. Walsh, S.P. Harrison, K.J. Brown, M.E. Edwards, P.E. Higuera,

M.J. Power, C. Whitlock, R.S. Anderson, C. Briles, A. Brunelle, C. Carcaillet, M.

Daniels, F.S. Hu, M. Lavoie, C. Long, T. Minckley, P.J.H. Richard, D.S. Shafer, W. 

Tinner, and C.E. Umbanhower Jr. 2009. Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in 

North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106 (8), 2519–2524. 

Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1961. American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to 

Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, New York NY. 500 pp. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 431

Martin, T.E. and J.L. Maron. 2012. Climate impacts on bird and plant communities from altered 

animal-plant interactions. Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1348. 

Online: www.nature.com/natureclimatechange. 

Mast, J.N. 2008 and 2011. Personal communications. Geography and Earth Science, School of 

Forestry, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI. 

Mazerolle and Desrochers 2005, as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. Appendices A–M.

McCall, T. 2011. Personal communications. Game Specialist, Region 2, Arizona Department of 

Game and Fish. Flagstaff, AZ. 

Merritt, J.F. 2010. The Biology of Small Mammals. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 

MD. 313 pp. 

Mikesic, D.G., and J.R. Nysted. 2001. Species account for Mustela nigripes. Navajo Heritage 

Program. Window Rock, AZ. Revised: 15 Feb 2005.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the 

Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications (17): 2145–2151. 

Moir, W.H. and J.H. Dieterich. 1988. Old-growth ponderosa pine from succession on pinebunchgrass habitat types in Arizona and New Mexico. Natural Areas Journal 8: 17–24. 

Moore, M.M., D.W. Huffman, J.D. Bakker, A.J. Sánchez Meador, D.M. Bell, P.Z. Fulé, P.F. 

Parysow, W.W. Covington. 2004. Quantifying Forest Reference Conditions for 

Ecological Restoration: The Woolsey Plots. Final Report to the Ecological Restoration 

Institute for the Southwest Fire Initiative. 

Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 2006. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: concepts 

and applications, 3rd Edition. Island Press. Washington, DC. 493 pp. 

Noble, William O. et al. 2013. Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation, Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative Coconino and Kaibab NF Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. On 

file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2009. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed June 

29, 2009; July 9, 2010, December 2011, August 2012. 

Opler, P.A., and A.B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Peterson Field Guide 

Series. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, NY. 540 pp. 

Overby, C.M. 2012. Personal communications. Forest Biologist, Coconino National Forest. 

Coconino Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: 

Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden 

Eagle Management and Permit Issuance.

Parish, C. 2012. Personal communications (email to Bill Noble, April 27, 2012). Peregrine Fund 

Condor Recovery Project. 
References

432 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Patton, D.R. 2011. Forest Wildlife Ecology and Habitat Management, 2011 CRC Press, Boca 

Raton, FL. 292 pp. 

Patton, D.R., and J. Gordon. 1995. Fire, habitats, and wildlife. Final Report submitted to the 

USDA Forest Service Coconino National Forest. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Patton, D.R., and C.L. Chambers. 2002. R3HARE, A logical wildlife relationships data model for 

habitats on southwestern national forests. School of Forestry Faculty Document, Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff in D. R. Patton, Forest Wildlife Ecology and Habitat 

Management, 2011 CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 292 pp. 

Paxon, J. 2011. The monster reared its ugly head (again). Arizona Wildlife News July–August pp. 

8–12. 

Prather, J.W., N.L. Dodd, B.G. Dickson, H.M. Hampton, Y. Xu, E.N. Aumack, and T.D. Sisk. 

2006. Landscape models to predict the influence of forest structure on tassel-eared 

squirrel populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:723–731. 

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of 

Agricultural Research. 46:627–638. 

Ray, C.T. 2011. Predicting the effects of forest management policies on goshawk occurrence in 

northern Arizona ponderosa pine. Master’s thesis. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

AZ. May 2011. 142 pp. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, 

R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

General Technical Report RM-217, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce, Jr. 2008. Northern Goshawk Habitat: An 

Intersection of Science, Management, and Conservation. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 72:1047–1055.

Reynolds, R.T., D.A. Boyce, Jr., and R.T. Graham. 2012. Ponderosa pine forest structure and 

northern goshawk reproduction: response to Beier et al. (2008). Wildlife Society Bulletin 

36:147–152. 

Roos, C.I., and T.W. Swetnam. 2011. A 1416-year reconstruction of annual, multidecadal, and 

centennial variability in area burned for ponderosa pine forests of the southern Colorado 

Plateau region, Southwest USA. The Holocene 22:281–290. 

Salafsky, S.R. 2004. Co-variation between Prey Abundance on Northern Goshawk Fecundity on 

the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. M.S. thesis. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO.

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, and B.R. Noon. 2005. Patterns of temporal variation in goshawk 

reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research 39:237–246. 

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, B.R. Noon, and J.A. Wiens. 2007. Reproductive responses of 

Northern Goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71(7):2274–2283. 
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 433

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2010. Version 

12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online:

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. Accessed March 2, 2012. 

Sauer, J.R., and W.A. Link. 2011. Analysis of The North American Breeding Bird Survey Using 

Hierarchical Models. The Auk 128:87–98. 

Smith, E.B. 2011. Relationships between Overstory and Understory Vegetation in Ponderosa Pine 

Forest of the Southwest. Unpublished Report to the Kaibab National Forest. The Nature 

Conservancy, Arizona. 16 pp.

Solvesky, B. 2008. Personal communications. Wildlife biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramental, CA. 

Solvesky, B., and C.L. Chambers. 2007. Bat Roost Inventory and Monitoring Project for Arizona 

Game and Fish Department Region 2. Final Report. 

_____. 2009. Roosts of Allen’s lappet-browed bat in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 73(5):677–682. 

Springer, A.E., and L.E. Stevens. 2008. Spheres of discharge of springs. Hydrogeology Journal 

(2009) 17: 83–93. DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0341-y. 

Sterling, John C. 1999. Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/458doi:10.2173/bna.458, 

accessed September 18, 2012. 

Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International. 13pp. Online: 

www.batcon.org. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern United 

States since AD 1700. Pp 11–32 in Allen, C.D. (ed.). 2nd La Mesa Fire Symposium; Los 

Alamos, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Coconino National Forest Service Land and Resource Management 

Plan, as amended. Flagstaff, AZ. 

_____. 1987. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended. 

_____. 2002. Management Indicator Species Status Report for the Coconino National Forest. 

Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

_____. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670.5. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and 

Animals. Definitions. Page 10. Online: http://fs.usda.gov/wps/myportal/fsintranet. 

Accessed January 26, 2013. 

_____. 2006. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment of 

Forest Plans. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Arizona and New Mexico. 149 pp. 

_____. 2008. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2007. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health, PR-R3-16-4, 47 p. 

Albuquerque, NM. 
References

434 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

_____. 2010a. Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest; an evaluation of 

population and habitat trends, Version 3.0, 2010. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest. 

_____. 2010b. Southwestern Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning A Guide for Addressing 

Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National Forests and National 

Grasslands.

_____. 2012. Kaibab National Forest. Threatened, Endangered, Protected, Candidate, and 

Sensitive Species List, updated September 13, 2012. Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office. Williams, AZ. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl: Vol. I. 

Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. 

_____. 1996a. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of 

a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona. Final 

Rule. Federal Register 61 (201):54044–54060. 

_____. 1996b. California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR. 

_____. 1996c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: establishment of a nonessential 

experimental population of black-footed ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona. Final Rule. 

Federal Register 61(55):11320–11336. 

_____. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

154 pp. 

_____. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 50 CFR Part 17 Final Designation 

of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Register 69 (168):53182–53230. 

_____. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. Appendices A–M.

_____. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. 93 pages. Online: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/B

CC2008.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2012. 

_____. 2012a. Biological and Conference Opinion, The continued Implementation of the Land 

and Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest of the Southwestern 

Region. March 30, 2012. 

_____. 2012b. Biological and Conference Opinion, The continued Implementation of the Land 

and Resource Management Plan for The Kaibab National Forest of the Southwestern 

Region. March 30, 2012. 

_____. 2012c. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan First Revision (Strix occidentalis lucida). 

Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM, USA. 414 pp. 

_____. 2012d. Threatened and Endangered Species – Coconino County. Unpublished document. 

April 25, 2012. 7pp. Arizona Ecological Field Offices. 

website:http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/Countylists/Coconino.pdf.
References

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 435

Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239doi:10.2173/bna.239, accessed September 18, 

2012. 

Waddell, R.B., R.A. Ockenfels, and S.R. Boe. 2005. Management recommendations for 

pronghorn on Camp Navajo, Arizona Army National Guard, Northern Arizona. Final 

report submitted to DEMA/JP-F Arizona Army National Guard. 28 pp. 

Waltz, A.E.M. and W.W. Covington. 2004. Ecological Restoration Treatments Increase Butterfly 

Richness and Abundance: Mechanisms of Response. Restoration Ecology 12:85–96. 

Ward, J.M., and P.L. Kennedy. 1996. Effects of supplemental food on size and survival of 

juvenile northern goshawks. Auk 113:200–208. 

Waskiewicz, J.D., P.Z. Fulé, and P. Beier. 2003. Comparing classification systems for ponderosa 

pine snags in northern Arizona. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 22: 233–240. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943. 

Western Bat Working Group. 2005a Western red bat species accounts. Available 

http://www.wbwg.org/species_accounts, accessed August 28, 2012. 

_____. 2005b. Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat species account. Available 

http://www.wbwg.org/species_accounts, accessed August 28, 2012. 

_____. 2005c. Western mastiff bat species accounts. Available 

http://www.wbwg.org/species_accounts, accessed August 28, 2012. 

Wiens, J.D., B.R. Noon, and R.T. Reynolds. 2006. Post-fledgling survival of northern goshawks: 

the importance of prey abundance, weather, and dispersal. Ecological Applications 

16:406-418. 

Williams, A.P., C.D. Allen, C.I. Millar, T.W. Swetnam, J. Michaelsen, C.J. Still, and S.W. Leavitt. 

2010. Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United 

States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 21289–21294. 

Wisdom, M.J. and L.J. Bate. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and 

human access. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 2085–2093.

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 437

Appendix A – Map Packet

Note: Hard copies of the DEIS include a packet of poster-sized maps for alternatives B, C, and D.

Electronic copies of the DEIS are available in DVD and web-based formats. For those viewing 

the DEIS electronically, map packets are available upon request. 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 439

Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

Table 91 summarizes the proposed forest plan amendments by alternative and theme. For electronic copy viewers, hyperlinks to each amendment 

are provided. 

Table 91. Summary of forest plan amendments by alternative and theme

Alt.

Mechanical 

Treatments in PACs 

– Coconino NF Only

Treatments in 

PAC Core Areas 

– Coconino NF 

Only

Restricted Habitat 

Management

Basal Area (BA) in 

Restricted Target 

and Threshold 

Habitat – Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs

Population and 

Habitat 

Monitoring – 

Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs

Habitat Treatment 

in Incremental 

Percentages

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: MSO Habitat Management

A NA NA NA NA NA NA

B Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. in 18 PACs

NA Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2 

Adds definitions for 

target and threshold 

habitat, allows managing 

for less than 10% target 

or threshold habitat

NA—Basal area in 

restricted target and 

threshold habitat 

remains 150 on both 

forests

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 2 

Defers monitoring to 

the project’s FWS 

biological opinion 

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2 

Defers treatment design 

to the project’s FWS 

biological opinion 

C Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 18-inch 

d.b.h. in 18 PACs

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows prescribed fire 

in 56 core areas

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

3 

Adds definition of 

restricted and threshold 

habitat, allows managing 

for less than 10% target 

or threshold on Coconino 

NF and Kaibab NF

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

3 

Allows for managing 

6,321 acres on the 

Coconino NF and 2,090 

acres on the Kaibab NF 

of restricted target and 

threshold habitat for a 

range of 110 to 150 BA

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 3 

Defers monitoring to 

the project’s USFWS 

biological opinion

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

3 

Defers treatment design 

to the project’s USFWS

biological opinion
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

440 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alt.

Mechanical 

Treatments in PACs 

– Coconino NF Only

Treatments in 

PAC Core Areas 

– Coconino NF 

Only

Restricted Habitat 

Management

Basal Area (BA) in 

Restricted Target 

and Threshold 

Habitat – Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs

Population and 

Habitat 

Monitoring – 

Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs

Habitat Treatment 

in Incremental 

Percentages

D Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Allows mechanical 

treatment up to 16 inch 

d.b.h. in 18 PACs

NA Coconino NF Amendment 

1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 2 

Adds definitions for target 

and threshold habitat, 

allows managing for less 

than 10% target or 

threshold habitat on the 

Coconino NF and Kaibab 

NF 

NA—basal area in 

restricted target and 

threshold habitat 

remains 150 on both 

forests 

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF 

Amendment 1 

Defers monitoring to 

the project’s USFWS

biological opinion

Coconino NF 

Amendment 1 

Kaibab NF Amendment 

2 

Defers treatment design 

to the project’s USFWS

biological opinion

Alt. Description

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management of Canopy Cover and 

Ponderosa Pine with an Open Reference Condition within Goshawk Habitat

A NA

B–

D 

Coconino NF Amendment 2, Kaibab NF Amendment 1: For both the Coconino NF and Kaibab NF the amendment: (1) adds the desired percentage of interspaces 

within uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration, (2) adds the interspaces distance between tree groups, (3) adds language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not 

measured, (4) allows 29,017 acres on Coconino NF (alts. B–D) and 27,637 acres on Kaibab NF (alts. B, D) or 27, 675 acres (alt. C only) to be managed for an open 

reference condition (up to 90 percent open with less than 3 to 5 reserve trees), and (5) adds a definition to the forest plan glossary for the terms: interspaces, open 

reference condition, and stands.

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Management of the Proposed Garland Prairie RNA

A NA

B NA

C Kaibab NF Amendment 2: The amendment would add language to allow prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order to maintain and/or restore the ecological 

qualities of the proposed RNA.

D NA
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Coconino NF and Kaibab NF Draft Environmental Impact Statement 441

Alt.

Mechanical 

Treatments in PACs 

– Coconino NF Only

Treatments in 

PAC Core Areas 

– Coconino NF 

Only

Restricted Habitat 

Management

Basal Area (BA) in 

Restricted Target 

and Threshold 

Habitat – Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs

Population and 

Habitat 

Monitoring – 

Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs

Habitat Treatment 

in Incremental 

Percentages

Forest Plan Amendment Theme: Effect Determination for Cultural Resources

A NA

B–

D 

Coconino NF Amendment 3: The amendment deletes the standard that would require achieving a “no effect” determination and adds the words “or no adverse effect” 

to the remaining standard. In effect, management strives to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

442 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Alternative B – Coconino National Forest 

Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Three nonsignificant, site-specific forest plan amendments are proposed for alternative B. Table 

92 provides the current forest plan direction and the proposed amendment language for 

comparison purposes.

Related Planning Efforts

A revised MSO recovery plan, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter referred to 

as FWS) was finalized in December of 2012 (USDI 2012). The current forest plan is consistent 

with the previous MSO recovery plan (USDI 1995). At some point in time, the Coconino NF may 

amend its forest plan to be consistent with the revised MSO recovery plan. For this analysis, a 

forest plan amendment would be needed to utilize the revised recovery plan direction if it is 

different than what is currently included in the Coconino NF forest plan.

Currently, the Coconino NF is revising its forest plan. An analysis was conducted to determine 

how the proposed amendments align with the draft plan (as currently written) (USDA 2011). A 

revised forest plan may affect the need for amendment 1 through 3 in the following ways:

Amendment 1: The amendment would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as 

currently written) in that it defers management of MSOs to direction in the MSO recovery 

plan. The revised (2012) MSO recovery plan does not limit tree removal from within PACs to 

a specific d.b.h., nor does it require a specific method for habitat monitoring. Although 

restricted habitat is referred to as “recovery habitat” and “nest/roost habitats” in the 2012 

revised plan (USDI 2012, pp. 3, 4), the project’s desired conditions for nesting and roosting 

habitat is consistent with the revised recovery plan. The revised plan still recommends that a 

percentage (10 to 25 percent) of recovery habitat be managed as nesting/roosting (USDI 

2012, page VIII). Designating habitat in the project with the best potential would move 

toward desired percentages in recovery habitat. Amendment 1 would provide additional sitespecific requirements at the project scale that would not be precluded by the revised forest 

plan or the revised (2012) recovery plan (USDI 2012). 

Amendment 2: Canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 and direction for managing 

goshawk habitat for a balance of VSS is presented differently in the current draft forest plan 

(USDA 2011, pages 51 to 54). Amendment 2 would be in alignment with the draft forest plan 

(as currently written) as it: (1) provides for managing crowns of trees within the mid-aged to 

old groups as interlocking or nearly interlocking (USDA 2011, page 53); (2) manages forest 

conditions in goshawk PFAs with 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree 

groups than in goshawk foraging areas and general forest (USDA 2011, Page 51); (3) 

manages for goshawk nest areas (known and replacement) (USDA 2011, page 53); and (4) 

generally maintains 3 to 5 reserve trees in management created openings greater than 1 acre 

in ponderosa pine goshawk foraging areas and PFAs (USDA 2011, page 54), with the 

exception of acres managed for an open reference condition. 

The draft forest plans (as currently written) allow for project-specific plan amendments. The 

portion of the amendment that allows: (1) deviation from maintaining 3 to 5 reserve trees per 

acre and (2) having openings up to 90 percent (on lands managed for an open reference 

condition) would be consistent with what is allowed at the project level.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 443

At the landscape scale, the project would be consistent with forest plan draft desired 

conditions for ponderosa pine which states, “Forest appearance is variable but generally 

uneven-aged and open; occasional areas of even-aged structure are present. The forest 

arrangement is in individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees interspersed within 

variably sized openings of grass/forb/shrub vegetation associations similar to historic 

patterns. Size, shape, number of trees per group, and number of groups per area are variable 

across the landscape” (USDA 2011, page 51). The terms “interspaces” and “open reference 

condition” do not appear in the draft forest plans (as written). The amendment would need to 

continue providing this definition. The definition of “stand” could be removed from the 

amendment (USDA 2011, page 225). The amendment would provide additional site-specific 

direction and definitions that apply to landscape restoration that are not precluded by the draft 

forest plan.

Amendment 3 would not be required. As currently written, the draft forest plan desired 

condition is to generally manage for no adverse effects and minimize adverse impacts or 

impacts through consultation (USDA 2012, “Coconino National Forest Draft Land and 

Resource Management Plan,” November. FW-Hrtg-DC, DC-1, p. 92). 

Amendment 1. MSO Habitat Management (Coconino NF)

Amendment 1 is a specific, one-time variance for the Coconino NF restoration project. Once the 

project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. The language 

proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendment would be authorized per 

direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

The amendment would add language to allow mechanical treatments up to 16-inch d.b.h. to 

improve habitat structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO PACs. 

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for designating 

less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as target or threshold ( i.e., future 

nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. Definitions of target and 

threshold habitat would be added since the current forest plan refers to “threshold” in terms of 

values and desired conditions (see Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-3.) within restricted habitat 

and there is no reference to “target” conditions.

The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 

percent increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs 

as controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and posttreatment, population, and habitat monitoring). Replacement language would defer final project 

design and monitoring to the FWS biological opinion specific to MSO for the project.

Background

In 2011, biologists from the Coconino and Kaibab NFs, the 4FRI team, and the FWS worked 

together to review individual MSO PACs within the project area. The evaluation process 

including site visits and modeling silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire to move existing 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

444 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

owl habitat toward the desired conditions described in the 1995 MSO recovery plan (USDI 1995) 

and forest plan. 

There are 99 PACs within the 4FRI project area and 72 PACs within the treatment area. Of the 72, 

18 were identified as having habitat that could be improved with vegetation treatments. No PACs 

proposed for treatment are located in designated wilderness. Each stand within the 18 PACs was 

modeled to identify treatments that would yield the best existing and future MSO habitat 

conditions. See the wildlife specialist report “Methodology” section for complete details on the 

habitat evaluation process. 

Mechanical Treatment Up to 

16-inch d.b.h. in Select PACs (7,353 acres)

MSO PAC field reviews, data evaluation, and vegetation simulation modeling indicated 18 MSO 

PACs (approximately 3,388 acres or 10 percent of all PACs acres within the treatment area) 

would move toward MSO recovery plan desired conditions from mechanically cutting trees up to 

9-inch d.b.h. Treatments up to 9-inch d.b.h. are consistent with the forest plan. 

An additional 7,353 acres within 18 PACs would have nesting and roosting habitat benefits from 

cutting trees up to 16-inch d.b.h. Mechanical treatments above 9-inch d.b.h. would facilitate the 

removal of ladder and canopy fuels which would reduce the fire risk in the 18 PACs. Increasing 

the range of the mechanical treatment thresholds up to 16-inch d.b.h. within 18 MSO PACs would 

provide for a higher degree of stand structure improvements to nesting and roosting habitat. The 

proposal addresses comments from the FWS and is in alignment with the revised MSO recovery 

plan (USDI 2012). Figure 50 displays the general location of mechanical treatment up to 16-inch 

d.b.h., prescribed fire, and areas where no treatment is proposed within MSO PACs. 

Incremental Treatments and Monitoring 

Responses to Spotted Owl Treatments

Monitoring assesses the effectiveness of management actions and provides the adaptive 

framework for more successful management guidelines. Monitoring habitat allows for modeling 

future forest conditions to determine if there will be adequate habitat to support MSO 

populations. Monitoring and final project design (addressing incremental treatments) for all 

proposed activities in all MSO habitat would be developed in consultation with the FWS in a 

manner specific to this project.

Manage Up to 10 Percent of 

Restricted Habitat as Target or Threshold 

In 2011, biologists from the Coconino and Kaibab NFs, the 4FRI team, and the FWS worked 

together to develop a geographic layer for restricted habitat across the 4FRI treatment area. Data 

from the Kaibab and Coconino NFs (based on polygons) was merged with pine-oak data from the 

Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (raster data; Dr. Steve Sesnie and Jill 

Rundall, Northern Arizona University). This landscape-scale approach better meets the goal of 

providing continuous replacement nesting and roosting habitat over space and time, as described 

in the previous (1995) recovery plan and the 1996 “Record of Decision for the Amendment of 

Eleven Forest Plans.” A new restricted layer was created within the 4FRI treatment area, 

including designation of target and threshold habitat as described in the MSO recovery plan. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 445

The Kaibab NF consists of three disjunct ranger districts. The North Kaibab Ranger District is 

north of the Grand Canyon and in a different recovery unit. No resident MSOs have been 

identified on the North Kaibab and the district is outside the 4FRI planning boundary. The 

Tusayan and Williams districts are both south of the Grand Canyon and both districts are in the 

4FRI planning boundary. The Tusayan district does not include MSO habitat and there are no 

records of MSOs occurring on the district. The Williams district has limited pine-oak habitat. In 

achieving a landscape-scale assessment for the 4FRI, MSO pine-oak habitat was assessed across 

the Williams district and much of the Coconino NF. 

The MSO recovery plan describes past planning as operating at “limited spatial scale(s)” which 

precludes a more meaningful review of MSO habitat at ecological scales (USDI 1995). The scale 

of the 4FRI, and the fact it transcends administrative boundaries, allows managers to conduct a 

true landscape-scale analysis. Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI restricted 

habitat would be managed as current or future target or threshold habitat. On the Coconino NF 

portion of the project, where the most owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 13 percent (6,465 

acres) of the restricted layer would be designated as target or threshold habitat. The Kaibab NF 

portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 percent (2,247 acres) of the restricted layer 

designated as target or threshold habitat. By creating more future nesting and roosting habitat on 

the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more contiguous for dispersing MSOs, and occur 

in areas supporting higher densities of MSOs than if 10 percent of the restricted layer was 

designated by individual administrative boundaries (see figure 60 and figure 62).

Edited or added/new text is bolded in table 92. 

Table 92. Alternative B Amendment 1 Current and Proposed MSO Forest Plan Language 

(Coconino NF)

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

MSO Standards

No corresponding direction currently exists The project will comply with biological opinion that 

has been developed in consultation with FWS.

Provide three levels of habitat management – protected, 

restricted, and other forest and woodland types to 

achieve a diversity of habitat conditions across the 

landscape (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65).

No Change

Protected areas include delineated protected activity 

centers; mixed conifer and pine-oak forests with slopes 

greater than 40% where timber harvest has not occurred 

in the last 20 years; and reserved lands which include 

wilderness, research natural areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, and congressionally recognized wilderness study 

areas (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer, pine-oak, and 

riparian forests outside of protected areas (Coconino NF 

forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

446 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Other forest and woodland types include all ponderosa 

pine, spruce-fir, woodland, and aspen forests outside 

protected and restricted areas (Coconino NF forest plan, 

p. 65). 

No Change

Survey all potential spotted owl areas including 

protected, restricted, and other forest and woodland 

types within an analysis area plus the area 1/2 mile 

beyond the perimeter of the proposed treatment area 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Establish a protected activity center at all Mexican 

spotted owl sites located during surveys and all 

management territories established since 1989 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood and fire 

risk abatement in established protected activity centers. 

For protected activity centers destroyed by fire, 

windstorm, or other natural disaster, salvage timber 

harvest or declassification may be allowed after 

evaluation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65).

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood, fire risk 

abatement, in established protected activity centers 

except as follows: Allow firewood, fire risk 

abatement, and habitat structure improvement in 

the following established protected activity centers: 

Lake No. 1/Seruchos, Archies, Red Hill, Crawdad, 

Holdup, Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, 

Mayflower Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, 

Rock Top, Lee Butte, Foxhole, Bar M, and Sawmill 

Spring. For protected activity centers destroyed by fire, 

windstorm, or other natural disaster, salvage timber 

harvest or declassification may be allowed after 

evaluation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Allow no timber harvest except for fire risk abatement in 

mixed conifer and pine-oak forests on slopes greater 

than 40% where timber harvest has not occurred in the 

last 20 years (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Limit human activity in protected activity centers during 

the breeding season (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

In protected and restricted areas, when activities 

conducted in conformance with these standards and 

guidelines may adversely affect other threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species or may conflict with 

other established recovery plans or conservation 

agreements; consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service 

to resolve the conflict (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-

1). 

No Change

Monitor changes in owl populations and habitat needed 

for delisting (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-1).

See “Standards” for monitoring direction
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 447

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Guidelines – General – No Change

Guidelines – Protected Areas, Protected Activity Centers

Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres around the 

activity center using boundaries of known habitat 

polygons and/or topographic features. Written 

justification for boundary delineation should be 

provided (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-1).

No Change

The protected activity center boundary should enclose 

the best possible owl habitat configured in as compact a 

unit as possible, with the nest or activity center located 

near the center (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-

1). 

No Change 

The activity center is defined as the nest site. In the 

absence of a known nest, the activity center should be 

defined as a roost grove commonly used during 

breeding. In the absence of a known nest or roost, the 

activity center should be defined as the best nest/roost 

habitat (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Protected activity center boundaries should not overlap 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1).

No Change

Submit protected activity center maps and descriptions 

to the recovery unit working group for comment as soon 

as possible after completion of surveys (Coconino NF 

forest plan, p. 65-1).

No Change

Road or trail building in protected activity centers 

should be avoided but maybe permitted on a case-bycase basis for pressing management reasons (Coconino 

NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Generally allow continuation of the level of recreation 

activities that was occurring prior to listing (Coconino 

NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Require bird guides to apply for and obtain a special use 

permit. A condition of the permit shall be that they 

obtain a subpermit under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Master Endangered Species permit. The permit 

should stipulate the sites, dates, number of visits, and 

maximum group size permissible (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way that 

effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within the 

following limitations to minimize effects on the owl 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-2).

Retain key forest species such as oak.

Retain key habitat components such as snags and large 

downed logs.

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only 

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way 

that effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within 

the following limitations to minimize effects on the 

owl.

Retain key forest species such as oak.

Retain key habitat components such as snags and large 

downed logs.

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

448 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

within those protected activity centers treated to abate 

fire risk as described below, except for the Clark PAC 

where trees less than 16 inches diameter will be 

harvested. 

within those protected activity centers treated to abate 

fire risk as described below, except for the Clark PAC 

where trees less than 16 inches diameter will be 

harvested area except as follows:

Harvest conifers up to 16-inch diameter within the 

Lake No. 1/Seruchos, Archies, Red Hill, Crawdad, 

Holdup, Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, 

Mayflower Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, 

Rock Top, Lee Butte, Foxhole, Bar M, and Sawmill 

Spring PACs to abate fire risk and improve habitat 

structure.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Select for treatment 10% of the protected activity 

centers where nest sites are known in each recovery unit 

having high fire risk conditions. Also select another 10% 

of the protected activity centers where nest sites are 

known as a paired sample to serve as control areas 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-2). 

–Designate a 100-acre “no treatment” area around the 

known nest site of each selected protected activity 

center. Habitat in the no treatment area should be as 

similar as possible in structure and composition as that 

found in the activity center.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter (or less than 16 inches in the Clark PAC), 

mechanical fuel treatment and prescribed fire to abate 

fire risk in the remainder of the selected protected 

activity center outside the 100-acre “no treatment” area.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Designate a 100-acre “no treatment” area around the 

known nest site of each selected protected activity 

center. Habitat in the no treatment area should be as 

similar as possible in structure and composition as that 

found in the activity center.

– Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches 

in diameter (or less than 16 inches in the Clark PAC), 

mechanical treatment and prescribed fire to abate fire 

risk in the remainder of the selected protected activity 

center outside the 100-acre “no treatment” area except 

as follows:

Use combinations of thinning trees up to 16-inch 

d.b.h. within the Lake No. 1/Seruchos, Archies, Red 

Hill, Holdup, Rock Top, Foxhole, Bar M, PACs, 

Crawdad, Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, 

Mayflower Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, 

Lee Butte, and Sawmill Springs PACs, mechanical 

fuel treatment and prescribed fire to abate fire risk and 

improve habitat structure in the remainder of the 

selected protected activity center outside the 100-acre 

“no treatment” area.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. Pre- and 

post-treatment monitoring should be conducted in all 

protected activity centers treated for fire risk abatement. 

(See monitoring guidelines) (Coconino National Forest 

plan, page 65-2). 

–See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

Steep Slopes (Mixed conifer and pine-oak forests outside protected activity 

centers with slopes greater than 40% that have not been logged 

within the past 20 years): No seasonal restrictions apply.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and prescribed fire.

–Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, 

snags, clumps of broadleafed woody vegetation, and 

hardwood tress larger than 10 inches in diameter at the 

root collar.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches 

in diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and prescribed 

fire.

–Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, 

snags, clumps of broadleafed woody vegetation, and 

hardwood tress larger than 10 inches in diameter at the 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 449

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

– Pre and post treatment monitoring should occur within 

all steep slopes treated for fire risk abatement. (See 

monitoring guidelines). 

root collar.

–See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

Reserved Lands (Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Congressionally Recognized Wilderness 

Study Areas): Allow prescribed fire where appropriate – No change. 

Restricted Areas (Mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forests)

No corresponding direction Target habitat is a category of restricted habitat 

intended to provide future nesting and roosting 

habitat (see glossary definition for restricted 

habitat). The minimum values identified for the 

forest attributes represent the threshold for meeting 

nesting and roosting conditions (see the definition 

for threshold habitat). They can also be targets to be 

achieved with time and management. If less than 10 

percent of the restricted habitat in ponderosa pineGambel oak qualifies as threshold habitat, the areas 

that can eventually achieve all threshold conditions 

simultaneously should be identified as target habitat 

and managed to achieve threshold conditions as 

rapidly as possible. Because no known nests or 

roosts occur in restricted habitat, target habitat is 

considered future nesting and roosting habitat.

No corresponding direction Threshold habitat is a category of restricted habitat 

intended to provide for future nesting and roosting 

habitat (see definition for restricted habitat). A 

variety of forest structural attributes is used to 

define when nesting and roosting habitat is achieved 

(summarized in table III.B.1 of the 1995 recovery 

plan and table C-2 of the 2012 recovery plan). 

Threshold habitat meets or exceeds these values. 

When the minimum values identified for the forest 

attributes are met simultaneously, they represent 

the threshold of nesting and roosting conditions. Up 

to 10 percent of restricted habitat in ponderosa 

pine-Gambel oak should be designated as threshold 

habitat. Management in threshold habitat cannot 

lower any of the forest attribute values below the 

nesting and roosting threshold unless a landscape 

analysis demonstrates an abundance of this habitat. 

Because no known nests or roosts occur in restricted 

habitat, target habitat is managed as future nesting 

and roosting habitat.

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (see glossary 

definition): Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl 

nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape. 

Create replacement owl nest/roost habitat where 

appropriate while providing a diversity of stand 

conditions across the landscape to ensure habitat for a 

diversity of prey species. The following table displays 

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (See glossary 

definition): Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl 

nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape. 

Create replacement owl nest/roost habitat where 

appropriate while providing a diversity of stand 

conditions across the landscape to ensure habitat for a 

diversity of prey species. The following table displays 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

450 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

the minimum percentage of restricted area which should 

be managed to have nest/roost characteristics. The 

minimum mixed conifer restricted area includes 10% at 

170 basal area and an additional amount of area at 150 

basal area. The additional area of 150 basal area is +10% 

in BR-E and +15% in all other recovery units. The 

variables are for stand averages and are minimum 

threshold values and must be met simultaneously. In 

project design, no stands simultaneously meeting or 

exceeding the minimum threshold values should be 

reduced below the threshold values unless a districtwide 

or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas shows 

that there is a surplus of restricted area acres 

simultaneously meeting the threshold values. 

Management should be designed to create minimum 

threshold conditions on project areas where there is a 

deficit of stands simultaneously meeting minimum 

threshold conditions unless the districtwide or larger 

landscape analysis shows there is a surplus. This table 

has been modified to contain only information pertinent 

to the Coconino NF. (Coconino NF forest plan, pp. 65-3 

to 65-5).

the minimum percentage of restricted area which 

should be managed to have nest/roost characteristics. 

The minimum mixed conifer restricted area includes up 

to 10 percent at 170 basal area and an additional 

amount of area at 150 basal area. The additional area of 

150 basal area is +10 percent in BR-E and +15 percent

in all other recovery units. In pine-oak, the minimum 

restricted area includes up to 10 percent at 150 

basal area. The variables are for stand averages, are 

minimum target and threshold habitat values, and 

must be met simultaneously. In project design, no 

stands simultaneously meeting or exceeding the 

minimum target and threshold habitat values should 

be reduced below target and threshold values unless a 

districtwide or larger landscape analysis of restricted 

areas shows that there is a surplus of restricted area 

acres simultaneously meeting target and threshold 

values. Management should be designed to create 

minimum target and threshold habitat conditions on 

project areas where there is a deficit of stands 

simultaneously meeting minimum target and threshold 

habitat conditions unless the districtwide or larger 

landscape analysis shows there is a surplus. This table 

has been modified to contain only information pertinent 

to the Coconino NF.

Variable

Mixed 

Conifer All 

RU

Mixed 

Conifer

Other RU*

Pine-Oak Target and 

Threshold Habitat**

Restricted Area % 10% +15% Up to 10%

Stand Averages for:

Basal Area 170 150 150

18 inch+ trees/acre 20 20 20

Oak Basal Area NA NA 20

Percent total existing:

12–18” 10 10 15

18–24” 10 10 15

24+” 10 10 15

Attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns by 

incorporating natural variation, such as irregular tree 

spacing and various patch sizes, into management 

prescriptions (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-

4). 

No Change

Maintain all species of native trees in the landscape 

including early seral species (Coconino National Forest 

plan, page 65-4). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 451

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus 

producing horizontal variation in stand structure 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Emphasize uneven-aged management systems. 

However, both even-aged and unevenaged systems may 

be used where appropriate to provide variation in 

existing stand structure and species diversity. Existing 

stand conditions will determine which system is 

appropriate (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands to greater than 

200 years. Silvicultural prescriptions should explicitly 

state when vegetative manipulation will cease until 

rotation age is reached (Coconino National Forest plan, 

page 65-4). 

No Change

Save all trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. In pine-oak 

forests, retain existing large oaks and promote growth of 

additional large oaks (Coconino National Forest plan, 

page 65-4). 

No Change

In pine-oak forests, retain existing large oaks and 

promote growth of additional large oaks (Coconino 

National Forest plan, page 65-4).

No Change

Encourage prescribed and prescribed natural fire to 

reduce hazardous fuel accumulation. Thinning from 

below may be desirable or necessary before burning to 

reduce ladder fuels and the risk of crown fire (Coconino 

National Forest plan, page 65-4).

No Change

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat components:

• Snags 18 inches in diameter and larger

• Down logs over 12 inches midpoint diameter

• Hardwoods for retention, recruitment, and 

replacement of large hardwoods

No Change

Riparian Areas – No Change

Domestic Livestock Grazing – No Change

Old-Growth – No Change

Other Forest and Woodland Types – No Change

Guidelines for Specific Recovery Units – No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

452 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Monitoring Guidelines

Monitoring and evaluation should be collaboratively 

planned and coordinated with involvement from each 

national forest, USFWS Ecological Services Field 

Office, USFWS Regional Office, USFS Regional 

Office, Rocky Mountain Research Station, recovery 

team, and recovery unit working groups.

See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

Population monitoring should be a collaborative effort 

with participation of all appropriate resource agencies. 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-6). 

Habitat monitoring of gross habitat changes should be a 

collaborative effort of all appropriate resource agencies. 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-6). 

Habitat monitoring of treatment effects (pre- and posttreatment) should be done by the agency conducting the 

treatment. (Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-6). 

Prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report 

covering all levels of monitoring done in the previous 

year. The annual report should be forwarded to the 

regional forester with copies provided to the recovery 

unit working groups, USFWS Ecological Services field 

offices, and the USFWS Regional Office (Coconino 

National Forest plan, page 65-6).

Rangewide: Track gross changes in acres of owl habitat 

resulting from natural and human-caused disturbances. 

Acreage changes in vegetation composition, structure, 

and density should be tracked, evaluated, and reported. 

Remote sensing techniques should provide an adequate 

level of accuracy. (Coconino National Forest plan, page 

65-6)

In protected and restricted areas where silvicultural or 

fire abatement treatments are planned, monitor treated 

stands pre- and post-treatment to determine changes and

trajectories in fuel levels; snag basal areas; live tree 

basal areas; volume of down logs over 12 inches in 

diameter; and basal area of hardwood trees over 10 

inches in diameter at the root crown (Coconino National 

Forest plan, page 65-6).
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 453

Current Coconino NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Upper Gila Mountain, Basin and Range East, and 

Basin and Range West Recovery Units: Assist the 

recovery team and recovery unit working groups to 

establish sampling units consisting of 19 to 39 square 

mile quadrats randomly allocated to habitat strata. 

Quadrats should be defined based on ecological 

boundaries such as ridge lines and watersheds. Quadrat 

boundaries should not traverse owl territories. Twenty 

percent of the quadrats will be replaced each year at 

random.

Using the sample quadrats, monitor the number of 

territorial individuals and pairs per quadrat; 

reproduction; apparent survival; recruitment; and age 

structure. Track population density both per quadrat and 

habitat stratum.

See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

* Edited text is bolded.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

454 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 50. Alternative B amendment 1 MSO PAC treatments

Consistency with the MSO Recovery Plan

The 1995 recovery plan (USDI 1995), which was incorporated into the current forest plans states 

“Two primary reasons were cited for the listing: historical alteration of its habitat as the result of 

timber management practices, specifically the use of even-aged silviculture...” and “The danger 

of catastrophic wildfire...” While the recovery plan is clear that the primary existing threat is 

high-severity wildland fire, the recovery plan also states that “[r]etaining large trees is desirable 

because they are impossible to replace quickly and because they are common features of nesting 

and roosting habitats for the owl.” The recovery plan recognizes that “ecosystems are temporally 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 455

dynamic [and] provisions are needed to ensure owl habitat in the long term.” The primary 

objective to be achieved by the recovery plan guidelines is protection of the best available habitat 

for the MSO, while maintaining sufficient flexibility for land managers to abate high fire risks 

and to improve habitat conditions for the owl and its prey (page 89). The potential for using 

silviculture as a tool for meeting objectives such as maintaining and developing MSO habitat and 

enhancing various ecological factors is specifically identified in the recovery plan. 

The 1995 recovery plan recommends that recovery efforts concentrate on the recovery units with 

the highest owl populations and where significant threats exist. The project is located within the 

Upper Gila Mountain Recovery Unit (UGM RU). The UGM RU contains the largest known 

number of MSOs with approximately 55 percent of known spotted owl territories. The major land 

use within this recovery unit has been timber harvest.

The 1995 recovery plan describes a change in the size class distribution of trees that occurred on 

commercial forest lands in Arizona and New Mexico between the 1960s and 1980s. The density 

of large trees (greater than 19-inch d.b.h.) decreased by 20 percent and sapling-sized trees (1- to 

4.9-inch d.b.h.) decreased in both absolute density and in relative contribution to the size class 

distribution. Trees 5- to 12.9-inch d.b.h. increased in density by 40 percent and in relative 

proportion of the size class distribution and trees 13- to 19-inch d.b.h. increased in density but not 

in the relative proportion of the tree distribution. The decrease in large trees was described as “an 

alarming negative trend with respect to a very critical component of spotted owl habitat” (page 

68) given that “the basis to maintain owl populations is to ensure that adequate habitat quality and 

quantity will be sustained through time.” In order to achieve this, the 1995 recovery plan

advocates using coarse and fine filters for ecosystem management.

Coarse filters should be used “to maintain the natural array of conditions that exist with the biotic 

and physical limits of the landscape” while fine filters may be used “to provide specialized 

habitats or habitat elements within that overall landscape.” They recommend “innovative 

applications of uneven-aged management” for developing and maintaining important but difficult

to replace spotted owl habitat elements, including large pine and oak trees and key habitat 

components, such as trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h. and prey habitat. The amendment allows for 

using silvicultural treatments in 18 PACs at risk of losing key MSO habitat elements through 

declining forest health. Treatment objectives in the 18 PACs are to develop and maintain adequate 

MSO habitat quality and quantity through time.

The need to evolve from managing solely for firewood collection and fire risk abatement is 

reflected in the revised 2012 recovery plan. In the revised plan, the FWS states, “Management 

recommendations are most conservative within PACs, but by no means advocate a “hands-off” 

approach. The recovery team recognizes situations exist where management is needed to sustain 

or enhance desired conditions for the owl, including fire-risk reduction, as well as monitoring owl 

response. Mechanical treatments in some PACs may be needed to achieve these objectives; 

determining which PACs may benefit from mechanical treatments requires a landscape analysis 

to determine where the needs of fire risk reduction and habitat enhancement are greatest. ” 

(USDA 2012, page VIII) which is the process we are currently undergoing. 

The plan amendment would require monitoring to occur as outlined in the project’s biological 

opinion from the FWS. Following the current forest plan direction would have resulted in few 

PACs being treated during the life of the project. Current plan direction suspends treatments until 

monitoring of the initial sample shows there are no negative impacts, or negative impacts are 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

456 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

mitigated by modifying treatments. Following this direction could delay implementation for 

years, potentially decades’ if changes in populations had to be documented before additional 

treatments were implemented. Following the current forest plan direction would have resulted in 

few PACs being treated with the objective of fire-risk reduction or improving condition for the 

owl during the life of the project. 

The deviation from selecting PACs and monitoring in 10 percent increments is consistent with the 

new MSO recovery plan. The plan amendment would require monitoring to occur as outlined in 

the project’s biological opinion from the FWS. 

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management. How actions could potentially affect timing, location, and size, 

relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was evaluated.

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place and amended several times since 

1987, and revision efforts are underway. The forest plan incorporated direction (via an 

amendment) from the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s 1996 “Amendment of Forest Plans 

Record of Decision” (USDA 1996). The actions allowed via the amendment are consistent with 

existing forest plan direction in that it improves nesting and rooting habitat, reduces the risk of 

loss from fire, and will comply with the site-specific treatment and monitoring requirements in 

the FWS biological opinion. Forest plan direction may be amended to incorporate the revised 

MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012) which recognizes that habitat restoration, in addition to the 

reduction of fire risk, is key to improving habitat quality. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 457

Location and Size: There are 168 MSO PACs occurring entirely on the Coconino NF. The 

amendment would affect 18 (11 percent) of all Coconino NF PACs. There is approximately 

117,636 acres of MSO PACs on the Coconino NF. Approximately 35,566 acres of PAC habitat 

occurs within the project area. The amendment would affect 7,353 acres or 21 percent of the PAC 

habitat in the project area and approximately 6 percent of the total PAC habitat on the forest. 

Work would be accomplished incrementally over a 10-year period. On average, less than 1,000 

acres of PAC habitat would be treated per year. This is expected to balance the need to reduce the 

risk of crown fire while allowing for monitoring and feedback loops that would allow 

management to be adaptive. On the Coconino NF portion of the project—where the most owls 

and the most MSO habitat occurs—13 percent (6,465 acres) of the restricted layer would be 

designated as target or threshold habitat. 

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment is consistent with forest plan 

goals for wildlife and fish of managing habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish 

species and improve habitat for selected species (Coconino National Forest plan, replacement 

page 22-1) and to improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants 

and animals and other species as they become threatened or endangered (Coconino National 

Forest plan, replacement page 23). The amendment is consistent with goals and objectives by 

protecting conditions and structures used by spotted owls where they exist and to set other stands 

on a trajectory to grow into replacement nest habitat or to provide conditions for foraging and 

dispersal (USDI 2012).

The amendment removes language that addresses pre- and post-treatment, population, and habitat 

monitoring and replaces it with language that focuses on implementing the requirements in the 

FWS biological opinion for this project. Delaying treatment in PACs would leave occupied MSO 

habitat at risk of loss from high-severity fire. Arizona’s two largest fires account for nearly a 

million and half acres of forested land burned since 2002. Both fires included high-severity fire in 

PAC habitat. Other fires in the Upper Gila Recovery Unit have charred additional acres of MSO 

protected habitat. Most climate models suggest that the Southwest will experience higher 

temperatures and increased variability in precipitation, which will significantly affect fire regimes 

and forest health (Aumack et al. 2007). 

The FWS urges a deliberate and cautious approach to management activities within PACs (USDI 

2012). Silvicultural modeling of the proposed treatments indicates limited change to forest 

structure after implementation. However, the treatments are expected to include increased tree 

growth rates to reduce the time needed for developing large trees (defined as 18-inch d.b.h. and 

greater in the current recovery plan for the MSO), maintaining existing large trees, and decreasing 

surface fuels and increasing crown base height. Combined, this should develop and maintain 

MSO nesting and roosting habitat, a key aspect of the MSO recovery plan, while decreasing risk 

of crown fire. 

Forest restoration and fuel reduction treatments would be evaluated over time. Through formal 

consultation with FWS, we expect that monitoring would be designed and implemented to 

evaluate the effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel reduction treatments on spotted owl 

habitat, and to retain or move toward MSO desired future conditions, as described in the recovery 

plan. The details on accomplishing the monitoring goals will be developed specifically through 

coordination with the FWS under formal consultation, as described in the ESA. In this way, work 

to protect and improve PAC habitat can be accomplished in a timely manner while emphasizing 

monitoring and feedback loops to allow management to be adaptive. For these reasons, the 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

458 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

amendment as it relates to pre- and post-treatment, population, and habitat monitoring is 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives.

Designating target or threshold habitat in the project with the best potential would move toward

desired percentages in restricted (recovery) habitat, consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives.

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Table 93 displays the forestwide management area 

acres that would be affected. The amendment would affect about 5,359 acres (1 percent) of MA 3 

and about 1,773 acres (3 percent) of MA 35. Acres within other MAs (MA 4, MA 10, MA 5, MA 

9, MA 12, and MA 6) are minor, totaling 221 acres. 

The amendment intent is consistent with the management emphasis in MA 3 and MA 35 which 

stresses improving and maintaining the quality of the habitat (MA 3) and moving ponderosa pine 

toward the desired forest structure, including northern goshawk and MSO habitats (MA 35). The 

amendment would not impose requirements on future management of MSO PACs as the 

amendment is site specific to this analysis and only addresses current conditions within protected 

habitat. 

Table 93. Alternative B amendment 1 management area acres (Coconino NF)

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment 

Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

MA 3 Ponderosa Pine Below

40 Percent Slopes

511,015 5,359 1 

MA 35 Lake Mary Watershed 62,536 1,773 3 

MA 4, 10, 5, 

9, 12, and 6

See chapter 1, table 14 307,011 221 <1

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with million board 

feet (MMBF) of sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict 

with other resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing 

capacity (MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM). Due to the minimal acres affected, the 

amendment would not alter outputs on a forestwide basis or change the long-term relationship 

between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services. 

In comparison to the forest’s total suitable timber lands (626,326 acres), the amendment affects 

about 1 percent of those lands. For this reason, treatments within PACs do not measurably 

increase or decrease timber outputs or firewood availability. Treatment within PACs would not 

affect decisions that have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted 

livestock use. There would be no measurable effect to outputs on a forestwide basis or the longterm relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services from managing 

restricted habitat up to 10 percent or deferring the final design of treatments and monitoring to the 

project’s biological opinion.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 459

Amendment 2. Management of Canopy Cover 

and Ponderosa Pine with an Open Reference 

Condition within Goshawk Habitat (Coconino NF)

Amendment 2 is a specific, one-time variance for the Coconino NF portion of the restoration 

project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. 

The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendment would be 

authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

In the “Vegetation Management – Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas” 

and “Vegetation Management –Within Post-fledgling Family Areas” section of the forest plan, a 

site-specific, nonsignificant plan amendment would: (1) add the desired percentage of interspace 

within uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration, (2) add the interspace distance between tree 

groups, (3) add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, (4) allow 29,017 

acres to be managed for an open reference condition (which affects canopy cover guidelines for 

VSS 4 through VSS 6 groups and reserve trees), and (5) add a definition to the forest plan 

glossary for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. Edited or added/new text 

is bolded in the “Proposed New Guideline Language” column in table 94. 

The forest plan directs projects to manage for uneven-aged stand conditions within goshawk 

habitat. Forested groups consist of an interspersion of six vegetation structural stages (VSS 1 to 

VSS 6). For the purposes of this amendment, the following definitions apply:

• Stands are defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, 

composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently 

uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Four classification characteristics are 

generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical site (soils, aspect, elevation, 

plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, and 

age (1-aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis (administrative 

requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 

Based upon Agency guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres. 

• Interspaces are defined as the open space between tree groups intended to be managed 

for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered 

single trees.

• Open reference condition is defined as forested ponderosa pine areas with mollicintegrade soils to be managed as a relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated 

in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

Background

Canopy cover is defined as “the percentage of a fixed area covered by the crowns of plants 

delimited by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the spread of foliage” (Reynolds 

et al. 1992). Obtaining consistent results has been difficult; even the definition of the term is 

dependent on the method of measurement. To resolve this issue, the Forest Service used the 

Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) crown width model as the basis for developing stocking 

densities that would achieve desired canopy cover levels.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

460 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The forest plan directs projects to measure “vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape” (see Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-9). Whereas the forest plan clearly 

provides direction for meeting minimum canopy cover percentages in VSS 4 to 6, the plans lack 

explicit language for measuring canopy cover. Although the forest plan provides direction and 

desired conditions for the vegetation structural stages, the forest plan does not describe the 

relationship between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural openings across the landscape. 

Figure 51 displays general locations of goshawk habitat that is subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 through VSS 6 on the forests. 

Nonforested areas (interspaces) occur between individual trees, tree clumps, and tree groups. 

These nonforested areas (interspaces) are not equivalent to VSS 1. Whereas VSS 1 may provide 

openings in the short term, this structural stage is expected to regenerate tree cover in the long 

term. Refer to the silviculture report and the mplementation plan (appendix D) which provides 

minimum stocking guidelines that have been developed to assure canopy cover requirements are 

met.

Approximately 198,136 acres (61 percent) of the forested areas (within the project area) have an 

open reference condition that corresponds to mollic-integrade soils. The desired condition is to 

have a portion of these acres (29,017 acres) managed as a relatively open forest with trees 

typically aggregated in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix (Woolsey 1911, Cooper 

1960, White 1985, Pearson 1950, Covington et a1.1997, Abella and Denton 2009). See the soils 

specialist report for detailed information. Figure 52 displays the location of acres that would be 

managed for an open reference condition. 

Table 94. Alternative B Amendment 2 Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine 

with an Open Reference Condition in Goshawk Habitat (Coconino NF)

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas

No similar direction in forest plan General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over time 

for uneven-aged stand conditions composed of 

heterogeneous mosaics of tree groups and single trees, 

with interspaces between tree groups. The size of tree 

groups, as well as sizes and shapes of interspaces, should 

be variable. Over time, the spatial location of the tree 

groups and interspaces may shift within the uneven-aged 

stand. 

General: The distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir forests is 10% grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 

10% seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20% young forest 

(VSS 3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20% 

mature forest (VSS 5), 20% old forest (VSS 6). 

NOTE: The specified percentages are a guide and 

actual percentages are expected to vary + or – up to 

3% (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9).

General: For the areas managed for tree crown 

development, the distribution of vegetation structural stages 

for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forests is 10

percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent seedling-sapling 

(VSS 2), 20 percent young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent midaged forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature forest (VSS 5), and 20

percent old forest (VSS 6). Note: the specified percentages 

are a guide and actual percentages are expected to vary plus 

or minus up to 3 percent. 

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree age 

are a product of site quality in the ecosystem 

management area. Use site quality to guide in the 

No change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 461

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

distribution of VSS, tree density and tree ages. Use 

site quality to identify and manage dispersal PFA 

and nest habitat at 2–2.5 mile spacing across the 

landscape (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9). 

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger 

in height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter 

and at least 8 feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or 

larger on the forest floor, canopy cover is measured 

with vertical crown projection on average across 

the landscape (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9). 

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in height, 

downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 feet long, 

woody debris is 3 inches or larger on the forest floor, canopy 

cover as defined by vertical crown projection is evaluated 

within mid-aged to old forest vegetation structural stage 

groups (VSS 4, 5, and 6).

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation mosaic: 

30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand should be under 

ponderosa pine and deciduous tree crowns. Within areas 

managed for an open reference condition, 10 to 30 percent

of the uneven-aged stand should be under ponderosa pine 

and deciduous tree crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the interspaces 

between groups may range from 20 to 200 feet, but 

generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from drip line to 

adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups is not affected 

by single trees in the interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation 

structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high 

dispersion of VSS structural stage diversity, and 

interspaces comprise each uneven-aged forest stand. 

Collectively these stands aggregate to uneven-aged forest 

landscapes, similar to natural conditions. 

The order of preferred treatment for woody debris 

is: (1) prescribed burning, (2) lopping and 

scattering, (3) hand piling or machine grapple 

piling, (4) dozer piling (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 

65-9). 

No Change

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only 

to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and 

VSS 3) (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9). 

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only to midaged to old forest structural stage groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, and 

VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural 

stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in interspaces, 

natural meadows, grasslands, or other areas not managed 

for forest cover.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 1/3 60% and 2/3 40%, mature 

forest (VSS 5) should average 60+%, and old forest 

(VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum opening 

size is 1 acre with a maximum width of 125 feet. 

Provide 2 groups of reserve trees per acre with 6 

trees per group when opening size exceeds 0.5. 

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, and 10–15 

tons of woody debris per acre (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65-9). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

462 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 40+%, 

mature forest (VSS 5) should average 50+%, and 

old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%. 

Maximum opening size is up to 4 acres with a 

maximum width of up to 200 feet. Retain 1 group 

of reserve trees per acre of 3–5 trees per group for 

openings greater than 1 acre in size. Leave at least 3 

snags, 5 downed logs, and 10–15 tons of woody 

debris per acre (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) 

should average 40+%. Opening size is up to 4 acres 

with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One 

group of reserve trees, 3–5 trees per group, will be 

left if the opening is greater than an acre in size. 

Leave at least 2 snags per acre, 3 downed logs per 

acre, and 5–7 tons of woody debris per acre 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should 

average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 

40+ percent. Opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum 

width of up to 200 feet. One group of reserve trees, three to 

five trees per group, will be left if the created regeneration

opening is greater than an acre in size. Leave at least two

snags per acre, three downed logs per acre, and 5 to 7 tons of 

woody debris per acre.

In acres managed for an open reference condition, canopy 

cover guidelines for VSS 4 through VSS 6 groups do not 

apply. One group of reserve trees, with a minimum of one

to two trees per group will be left if the interspace size is 

greater than an acre in size. Interspace size is up to 4 

acres. Leave at least two snags per acre, three downed logs 

per acre, and 5 to 7 tons of woody debris per acre

Woodland: manage for uneven-age conditions to 

sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory 

and understory), age classes, and species 

composition well distributed across the landscape. 

Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody 

debris (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

Vegetation Management – Within Post-fledgling Family Areas

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable forest 

environment for the post-fledging family needs of 

goshawks. The principle difference between within 

the post-fledging family area and outside the postfledging family area is the higher canopy cover 

within the post-fledging family area and smaller 

opening size within the post-fledging family area. 

Vegetative structural stage distribution and 

structural conditions are the same within and 

outside the post-fledgling family area (Coconino 

NF forest plan, p. 65-10). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 463

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

No similar direction in forest plan Canopy cover is evaluated at the group level within midaged to old forest structural stages groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, 

and VSS 6) and not within grass/forb/shrub to young 

forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) 

or in interspaces, natural meadows and grasslands, or 

other areas not managed for forest conditions.

Spruce-fir: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 60+% and for mature (VSS 5) 

and old forest (VSS 6) should average 70+%

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy Cover for mid-aged (VSS 

4) to old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%.

No Change

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 50+%. 

Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should 

average 50+% (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation mosaic: 

30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand should be under 

ponderosa pine and deciduous tree crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the interspaces 

between groups may range from 20 to 200 feet, but 

generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from drip line to 

adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups is not affected 

by single trees in the interspace. 

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation 

structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high 

dispersion of vegetation structural stage diversity, and 

interspaces comprise each uneven-aged forest stand. 

Collectively these stands aggregate to uneven-aged forest 

landscapes, similar to natural conditions.

Glossary

No corresponding forest plan language Interspaces: The open space between tree groups intended 

to be managed for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the 

long term. Interspaces may include scattered single trees.

No corresponding forest plan language Open reference condition: Forested ponderosa pine areas 

with mollic-integrade soils to be managed as a relatively 

open forest with trees typically aggregated in small groups 

within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

No corresponding forest plan language Stands: Contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in 

forest type, composition, structure, and age class 

distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform 

conditions to be a distinguishable unit.

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

464 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 51. Alternative B goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 

and VSS 6 (Coconino and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 465

Figure 52. Alternative B general locations of savanna and grassland restoration treatments 

(Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

466 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management and the actions. How actions could potentially affect timing, location 

and size, relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was 

evaluated.

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1987 and plan 

revision efforts are underway.

Location and Size: Suitable goshawk habitat on the Coconino NF encompasses about 791,897 

acres (Green 2011, draft unpublished data). Approximately 399,633 acres of goshawk habitat is 

within the 4FRI project area.

• The canopy cover portion of the amendment would affect 139,308 acres (18 percent) of 

all goshawk habitat on the Coconino NF and about 35 percent of goshawk habitat within 

the project area. For this reason, location (confined to the ponderosa pine cover type) 

and size was determined to be nonsignificant.

• Managing 29,017 acres of ponderosa pine for an open reference condition would affect 

approximately 4 percent of all suitable goshawk habitats on the forest and about 8 

percent of goshawk habitat within the project area.

For these reasons, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant. The amendment would 

facilitate moving over 139,000 acres toward the desired forest structure (tree groups and 

herbaceous openings) that maximizes prey base species habitat and allows for reintroduction of 

fire into the ecosystem; and moves over 29,000 acres toward historic reference conditions.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: Alternative B would meet goshawk forest plan 

canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to 6 in all acres except the 29,017 acres managed for an 

open reference condition. In all acres but the open reference condition acres, actions would move 

toward forest plan desired VSS size class distribution.

The amendment is consistent with forest goals for wildlife and fish of managing habitat to 

maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species and improve habitat for selected species 

(Coconino National Forest Plan, replacement page 22-1) and to improve habitat for listed 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and other species as they 

become threatened or endangered (Coconino National Forest Plan, replacement page 23). 

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Table 95 displays the acres associated with 

Coconino NF management areas (MAs).
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 467

Canopy Cover: The acres of forestwide MAs affected by the canopy cover portion of the 

amendment (139,308 acres total) would range from 3 percent (MA 4) to 35 percent (MA 38). The 

amendment is specific to this project and would not impose definition and clarification 

requirements on the future management of canopy cover within goshawk habitat. 

Open Reference Condition: The acres of forestwide MAs affected by the open reference 

condition portion of the amendment (29,017 acres total) would range from 1 percent (MA 10) to 9 

percent (MA 35). The amendment is consistent with the management emphasis of providing for 

multiple uses that includes wildlife habitat (MA 3) and moving ponderosa pine toward desired 

forest structure, including northern goshawk habitats (MA 35). The amendment is specific to this 

project and would not impose requirements on the future management of the 29,017 acres of 

goshawk non-PFA; however, forest plan revision decisions may change future management.

Table 95. Alternative B amendment 2 management area acres (Coconino NF)

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment 

Acres

Forestwide 

Acres Affected 

(Percent)

Canopy Cover

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 40% slopes 511,015 92,301 18

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 14,337 23

MA 38 West 36,298 12,844 35

MA 6 Unproductive Timber Lands 67,146 4,929 7 

MA 37 Walnut Canyon 20,566 4,536 22

MA 20 Highway 180 corridor 7,608 2,087 27

MA 4 Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer

>40%

46,382 1,612 3 

MA 36 Schultz 21,289 1,815 9 

*MA 9, 28, 5, 

4, 10, 36, 34, 

7, 12, 18, 15, 

and 14

See chapter 1, table 14 549,579 4,847 <1

Open Reference Condition

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 40% slopes 511,015 19,010 4 

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 5,840 9 

MA 10 Transition grassland 160,494 1,288 1 

MA 38 West 36,298 1,073 3 

**MA 10, 9, 

7, 12, 34, 28, 

and 5

See chapter 1, table 14 474,169 1,806 <1

*Acres of MAs range from 7 to 1,215 and were aggregated into one category.

**Acres of MAs range from 3 to 655 and were aggregated into one category.

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the current forest plan are associated with MMBF

of sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

468 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing capacity 

(MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM).

The canopy cover portion of the amendment provides clarification and disclosure of methods for 

meeting forest plan requirements. It has no relationship to outputs or to the relationship between 

the level of goods (timber, firewood) and services and would not result in a change land 

productivity or timber suitability classification.

Managing a portion of the landscape for an open reference condition affects about 29,017 acres of 

an estimated 626,326 acres of suitable timber lands (USDA 1987). The management strategy on 

these acres would result in an extended rotation period between treatments beyond what was 

considered in developing the long-term sustained yield output in the forest plan. In the short term 

(10-year period), the amendment affects about 5 percent of the suitable land base. However, due 

to the minimal acres affected, the amendment would not measurably alter outputs in the 

foreseeable future on a forestwide basis or change the long-term relationship between levels of 

goods (timber, firewood) and services. There would be no change in land productivity; therefore, 

it would not affect timber suitability classification.

Whether the 29,017 acres would continue to be managed as suitable timber in the long term will 

be evaluated during the forest plan revision process. No portion of the amendment would affect 

decisions that have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted 

livestock use.

Amendment 3. Effect Determination 

for Cultural Resources (Coconino NF)

Amendment 3 is a specific, one-time variance for the Coconino NF restoration project. Once the 

project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. The language 

proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendment would be authorized per 

direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

The amendment deletes the standard that addresses achieving a “no effect” determination and 

adds the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining standard. Management strives to achieve a 

“no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination.

Background

The Coconino NF forest plan as written has some conflicting direction regarding managing 

significant or potentially significant sites. One standard (which would be amended for this 

project) directs management to strive to achieve a “no effect” determination. A second standard 

(which would be deleted for this project) directs management to achieve a “no effect” 

determination in consultation with SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800). An amendment is proposed 

to recognize that there could be effects that are not adverse, and that there could be adverse 

effects that may or may not be fully mitigated. Table 96 displays current and proposed forest plan 

language. New or edited text is displayed in bold type.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 469

Table 96. Alternative B amendment 3 effect determination for cultural resources (Coconino 

NF)

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standards 

and Guidelines Language*

Cultural Resources

Consult with Native Americans when projects and activities are planned in 

sites or areas of known religious or cultural importance (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 52).

No Change 

Make boughs and herbaceous plant parts used for Native American religious 

and ceremonial purposes available under conditions and procedures that 

minimize restrictions, consistent with laws, regulations, and agreements with 

tribes. The written authorization to the Hopi Tribe for gathering without 

specific individual permits is an example. This authorization does not include 

such items as firewood removed from the forest or Kiva logs, which do 

require a permit (Coconino NF forest plan, page 52).

No Change

The forest complies with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 

decisions involving interactions between cultural and other resources. 

Cultural resources are managed in coordination with the State Historic 

Preservation Plan (SHPO). Until evaluated, the minimal level of management 

for all sites is avoidance and protection (Coconino NF forest plan, page 52).

No Change

Specific standards and guidelines derived from the settlement agreement for 

the Save the Jemez lawsuit are subject to adjustment, should that agreement 

be modified. In that event an amendment to the forest plan will be issued 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 52).

No Change

Project undertakings are inventoried for cultural resources and areas of 

Native American religious use. Inventory intensity complies with regional 

policy, and the settlement agreement for the Save The Jemez Lawsuit, and is 

determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO). Generally, inventory standards are: One hundred percent survey of 

all projects causing complete surface disturbance; when less than 100 percent 

survey is deemed appropriate, the specific sample fraction surveyed is 

determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and is 

generally greater than 10 percent. Factors determining when sampling is 

appropriate include projects with dispersed or minimal impacts, low expected 

archaeological site density, ground cover, and types of archaeological sites 

present in the area; consultation with appropriate Native American groups; 

consultation with the SHPO, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP), before project implementation (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 52-1). 

No Change

Significant, or potentially significant, inventoried sites are managed to

achieve a “No Effect” determination, in consultation with the SHPO and 

ACHP (36 CFR 800) (Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

Deleted

Monitoring during and after project implementation is done to document site 

protection and condition (Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Management strives to achieve a “No Effect” determination (Coconino 

National Forest plan, page 53).

Management strives to achieve a 

“no effect” or “no adverse effect”

determination

When sample surveys, rather than 100 percent survey coverage, are done for

project clearances, survey locations and sample intensity are based on areas 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

470 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standards 

and Guidelines Language*

of greatest project impact, likely locations for cultural resource sites based on 

archaeological experience, land management planning, dispersion of sample 

coverage, certain topographic features specified in the Save the Jemez 

lawsuit settlement agreement, and likely areas based on the forest site density 

predictions (Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

Identified sites are evaluated for their National Register eligibility when they 

are severely damaged, when they will be impacted by an undertaking, or 

information about the uniqueness, commonness, and characteristics of their 

site class are sufficiently known to make an informed decision. Sites for 

which determinations of eligibility have not been made are managed as if 

they are eligible, unless consultation with the SHPO indicates otherwise 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

No Change

For each full-time professional cultural resource specialist employed by the 

forest, at least two site nominations, one archaeological district nomination, 

or one thematic or multiple resource nomination will be made each year to 

the National Register of Historic Places. Or, alternatively, the forest will 

coordinate with other forests to prepare a joint district, thematic, or multiple 

resource nomination (Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Inventoried sites allocated to management categories, and/or eligible or 

potentially eligible for the NRHP or potentially eligible for the NRHP are 

systematically revisited by regularly scheduled patrols, and by cultural 

resources specialists to assess natural deterioration, vandalism, or pilfering. 

Inspections are made at least biannually of properties that have been listed in 

or nominated to the National Register. Sites most susceptible to natural 

deterioration and/or human disturbance are monitored frequently. Rapid 

natural deterioration, or susceptibility to such, requires stabilization, 

restoration, and/or data recovery. Vandalism or pilfering requires protective 

measures such as signing, remote sensing, increased patrolling, 

investigations, stabilization, restoration, and/or data recovery. Specific sites 

or areas may be closed to off-road driving and withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Law enforcement is planned and implemented to minimize resource damage 

and user conflicts. Signing is appropriate to inform and educate the public 

and minimize direct law enforcement activity. Aggressively pursue violations 

(Coconino National Forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Continue to interpret cultural resources through lectures, tours, papers, 

reports, publications, brochures, displays, films, trails, signs, and other 

opportunities (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Develop a program to complete 100 percent coverage of the forest’s cultural 

resource inventory by 2000 (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

The first priorities for cultural resources protection, enhancement, and 

interpretation are those sites that are easily accessible, have major 

interpretive potential, or are in major need of repair. Priority sites for signing 

are the C. Hart Merriam Base Camp, Honanki Cliff Dwellings, Elden Pueblo, 

Sacred Mountain, Palatki Cliff Dwellings, and Clear Creek Ruins. Priority 

sites for repair and stabilization are Honanki Cliff Dwellings, Palatki Cliff 

Dwellings, Sacred Mountain, Clear Creek Cliff Dwelling, and General 

Springs Cabin. Priority sites for developing interpretive brochures are Elden 

Pueblo, Sacred Mountain, Red Tank Draw Petroglyphs, Honanki Cliff 

Dwellings, Palatki Cliff Dwellings, and Clear Creek Ruins. Priorities are to:

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 471

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standards 

and Guidelines Language*

Survey to clear projects.

Survey to fill in gaps in existing inventory coverage.

Survey areas of known high site densities.

Survey areas that would do the most to answer current archaeological 

questions (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

Computerize cultural resource site information by 1990 (Coconino National 

Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Maintain a form for tracking compliance of each undertaking with the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (Coconino National 

Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Stabilize or repair damaged National Register sites or other sites funded by 

regional priority (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Continue to develop the Elden Pueblo Interpretive Site and the cooperative 

education program with the Museum of Northern Arizona (Coconino 

National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Encourage universities to conduct summer field schools to assist in cultural 

resource survey and excavation work and to provide the forest with scientific 

knowledge (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Periodically focus media attention on Elden Pueblo and/or other sites to 

educate the public and further volunteer interest in resource management. 

Work with community organizations, businesses, and other agencies to 

promote Arizona Archaeology Week. Feature significant finds and 

significant damage in the media to increase public awareness of benefits and 

problems (Coconino National Forest plan, page 54).

No Change

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

472 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

The proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because multiple-use goals and 

objectives for long term land and resource management and its actions would not be altered. How 

the amendment could potentially affect timing, location and size, relationship to forest goals, 

objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was evaluated: 

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1987 and 

plan revision efforts are underway.

Location and Size: The amendment is specific to the 593,211 acres of proposed treatments in 

this project. This affects about 33 percent of the Coconino NF (which totals 1,821,495 acres). 

This would not have an important effect on the entire land management plan or a large 

portion of the planning area. For this reason, location and size was determined to be 

nonsignificant.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment would not affect attainment 

of forest goals and objectives for cultural resources. Cultural resource sites would be located 

and protected from project activities according to direction in FSM 2360 and 2430 (Coconino 

NF Forest Plan, page 50) and the requirements of 36 CFR 800 including 36 CFR 800.5, 

which provides direction for assessing adverse effects and proposing a finding of no adverse 

effect. Consultation with AZ SHPO would occur as required, and regulation 36 CFR 800 

would be followed and met. 

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: The amendment would apply to all 23 

management areas (MA) as described in the Coconino National Forest plan (pages 46 to 206-

113) and in chapter 1 of the DEIS. The amendment would not affect management of the 

MAs. All cultural resources are currently managed to minimize impacts and to achieve a “no 

effect” or “no adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in consultation with AZ 

SHPO, the council, and other consulting parties.

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with MMBF of 

sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing 

capacity (MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM).The amendment would not affect 

outputs or change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and 

services. All cultural resources are managed to minimize impacts and to achieve a “no effect” 

or “no adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in consultation with AZ SHPO, the 

council, and other consulting parties regardless of forest plan desired outputs. 

Alternative B – Kaibab National Forest 

Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Two site-specific, nonsignificant forest plan amendments are proposed for alternative B.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 473

Two Related Planning Efforts

A revised MSO recovery plan, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter referred to 

as FWS) was finalized in December of 2012 (USDI 2012). The current forest plan is consistent 

with the previous recovery plan (USDI 1995). At some point in time, the Kaibab NF may amend 

its forest plan to be consistent with the revised recovery plan. For this analysis, a forest plan 

amendment would be needed to utilize the revised recovery plan direction if it is different than 

what is currently included in the Kaibab NF land management plan.

Currently, the Kaibab NF is revising its forest plan. An analysis was conducted to determine how 

the proposed amendments align with the draft plan (as currently written) (USDA 2012). A revised 

forest plan may affect the need for amendments in the following ways:

Amendment 1: The current Kaibab NF forest plan has canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 

to VSS 6, has requirements for managing goshawk habitat for a balance of VSS, and 

requirements for managing for three to five reserve trees in management created openings 

(greater than 1 acre in ponderosa pine in goshawk foraging areas and PFAs). Management 

direction for goshawk habitat is presented differently in the current draft forest plan (USDA 

2012, page 14 to page 18). Amendment 1 would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as 

currently written) as it: (1) provides for managing crowns of trees within the mid-aged to old 

groups as interlocking or nearly interlocking (USDA 2012 page 15); (2) manages forest 

conditions in some areas (e.g., goshawk PFAs, MSO protected areas, drainages, and steep 

north-facing slopes) with 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups 

(USDA 2012, page 16); and(3) manages for known and replacement nest areas (USDA 2012, 

page 45). 

The draft forest plans allow for project specific plan amendments. The portion of the 

amendment that allows deviation from maintaining three to five reserve trees for acres and 

having openings up to 90 percent for lands managed for an open reference condition would 

be consistent with what is allowed at the project level. The desired condition in ponderosa 

pine at the landscape scale is a ponderosa pine forest vegetation community with a mosaic of 

forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. The forest is 

generally uneven-aged and open. Groups of old trees are mixed with groups of younger trees. 

Occasional areas of even-aged structure are present. Denser tree conditions exist in some 

locations such as north-facing slopes, canyons, and drainage bottoms (USDA 2012, page 16). 

The amendment would still be required. The terms “interspaces,” “open reference condition,” 

and “stands” do not appear in the draft forest plan (as currently written). The amendment 

would need to continue providing this definition. The amendment would provide additional 

site-specific direction and definitions that apply to landscape restoration that are not 

precluded by the draft forest plan. 

Amendment 2: The amendment would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as 

currently written) in that it defers management of MSO to direction in the MSO recovery

plan. The revised (2012) MSO recovery plan does not limit tree removal from within PACs to 

a specific d.b.h., nor does it require a specific method for habitat monitoring. Although 

restricted habitat is referred to as “recovery habitat” and “nest/roost habitats” in the 2012 

revised plan (USDI 2012, pp. 3, 4), the project’s desired conditions for nesting and roosting 

habitat is consistent with the revised recovery plan. The revised plan still recommends that a 

percentage (10 to 25 percent) of recovery habitat be managed as nesting/roosting (USDI 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

474 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

2012, page VIII). Designating habitat in the project with the best potential would move 

toward desired percentages in recovery habitat. Amendment 2 would provide additional sitespecific requirements at the project scale that would not be precluded by the revised forest 

plan or the revised recovery plan (USDI 2012). 

Amendment 1. Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine 

with an Open Reference Condition within Goshawk Habitat (Kaibab NF)

Amendment 1 is a specific, one-time variance for the Kaibab NF restoration project. Once the 

project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. The language 

proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendments would be authorized per 

direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

In the “Vegetation Management – Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas” 

and “Vegetation Management –Within Post-fledgling Family Areas” section of the forest plan, a 

nonsignificant plan amendment would: (1) add the desired percentage of interspace within 

uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration, (2) add the interspace distance between tree groups, 

(3) add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, (4) allows 27,637 acres to 

be managed for an open reference condition (which affects canopy cover guidelines for VSS 4 

through VSS 6 groups and reserve trees), and (5) add a definition to the forest plan glossary for 

the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands. Edited or added/new text is bolded in 

the “Proposed New Guideline Language” column in table 97. Figure 53 and figure 54 display 

general locations affected by canopy cover and savanna and grassland restoration treatments.

The Kaibab National Forest plan (hereafter referred as “forest plan”) directs projects to manage 

for uneven-aged stand conditions within goshawk habitat. Forested groups consist of an 

interspersion of six vegetation structural stages (VSS 1 to VSS 6). For the purposes of this 

amendment, the following definitions apply:

• Stands are defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, 

composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently 

uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Four classification characteristics are 

generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical site (soils, aspect, elevation, 

plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, and 

age (1-aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis (administrative 

requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 

Based upon Agency guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres. 

• Interspaces are defined as the open space between tree groups intended to be managed 

for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered 

single trees.

• Open reference condition is defined as forested ponderosa pine areas with mollicintegrade soils to be managed as a relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated 

in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 475

Background

Canopy cover is defined as “the percentage of a fixed area covered by the crowns of plants 

delimited by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the spread of foliage” (Reynolds 

et al. 1992). Obtaining consistent results has been difficult; even the definition of the term is 

dependent on the method of measurement. To resolve this issue, the Forest Service used the 

Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) crown width model as the basis for developing stocking 

densities that would achieve desired canopy cover levels.

The forest plan directs projects to measure “vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape” (see Kaibab NF land management plan, page 29). Whereas the forest plan clearly 

provides direction for meeting minimum canopy cover percentages in VSS 4 to 6, the plans lack 

explicit language for measuring canopy cover. Although the forest plan provides direction and 

desired conditions for the vegetation structural stages, the forest plan does not describe the 

relationship between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural openings across the landscape.

Nonforested areas (interspaces) occur between individual trees, tree clumps, and tree groups. 

These nonforested areas (interspaces) are not equivalent to VSS 1. Whereas VSS 1 may provide 

openings in the short term, this structural stage is expected to regenerate tree cover in the long 

term. Refer to the silviculture report and the implementation plan (appendix D) which provides 

minimum stocking guidelines that have been developed to assure canopy cover requirements are 

met.

Approximately 198,136 acres (61 percent) of the forested areas (within the project area) have an 

open reference condition that corresponds to mollic-integrade soils. The desired condition is to 

have a portion of these acres (27, 637 acres) managed as a relatively open forest with trees 

typically aggregated in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix (Woolsey 1911, Cooper 

1960, White 1985, Pearson 1950, Covington et a1.1997, Abella and Denton 2009). See the soils 

specialist report for detailed information.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

476 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 97. Alternative B amendment 1 – management of canopy cover and ponderosa pine 

with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Kaibab NF)

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Landscapes Outside Goshawk PFAs

No corresponding forest plan direction (see Kaibab 

NF forest plan, p. 29).

General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over 

time for uneven-aged stand conditions composed of 

heterogeneous mosaics of tree groups and single trees, 

with interspaces between tree groups. The size of tree 

groups, as well as sizes and shapes of interspaces, 

should be variable. Over time, the spatial location of 

the tree groups and interspaces may shift within the 

uneven-aged stand.

General: The distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and sprucefir forests is 10% grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10% 

seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20% young forest (VSS 

3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20% mature forest 

(VSS 5), 20% old forest (VSS 6). NOTE: The 

specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary + or – up to 3% 

(Kaibab NF Forest Plan, p. 29). 

General: For the areas managed for tree crown 

development, the distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir 

forests is 10 percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent

seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent young forest (VSS 

3), 20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature 

forest (VSS 5), and 20 percent old forest (VSS 6). Note: 

the specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary plus or minus up to 3

percent. 

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree age 

are a product of site quality in the ecosystem 

management area. Use site quality to guide in the 

distribution of VSS, tree density and tree ages. Use 

site quality to identify and manage dispersal PFA 

and nest habitat at 2 to 2.5 mile spacing across the 

landscape (Kaibab NF forest plan, p.29).

No Change

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in 

height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at 

least 8 feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger 

on the forest floor, canopy cover is measured with 

vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in 

height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 

8 feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger on the 

forest floor, canopy cover as defined by vertical crown 

projection is evaluated within mid-aged to old forest 

vegetation structural stage groups (VSS 4, 5, and 6).

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation 

mosaic: 30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns. Within areas managed for an open reference 

condition, 10 to 30 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the 

interspaces between groups may range from 20 to 200

feet, but generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from 

drip line to adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups 

is not affected by single trees in the interspace.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 477

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one 

vegetation structure stage. The spatial arrangement of 

trees, high dispersion of vegetation structural stage 

diversity, and interspaces comprise each uneven-aged 

forest stand. Collectively these stands aggregate to 

uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar to natural 

conditions.

The order of preferred treatment for woody debris is: 

(1) prescribed burning, (2) lopping and scattering, 

(3) hand piling or machine grapple piling, (4) dozer 

piling (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

No Change

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only 

to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and 

VSS 3) (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only to 

mid-aged to old forest structural stage groups (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to young 

forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) 

or in interspaces, natural meadows, grasslands, or 

other areas not managed for forest cover.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 1/3 60% and 2/3 40%, mature 

forest (VSS 5) should average 60+%, and old forest 

(VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum opening 

size is 1 acre with a maximum width of 125 feet. 

Provide 2 groups of reserve trees per acre with 6 

trees per group when opening size exceeds 0.5. 

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, and 10–15 

tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, p. 29).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 40+%,

mature forest (VSS 5) should average 50+%, and old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum 

opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width 

of up to 200 feet. Retain 1 group of reserve trees per 

acre of 3–5 trees per group for openings greater than 

1 acre in size. Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, 

and 10–15 tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, pp. 29–30).

No Change

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) 

should average 40+%. Opening size is up to 4 acres 

with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group 

of reserve trees, 3–5 trees per group, will be left if 

the opening is greater than an acre in size. Leave at 

least 2 snags per acre, 3 downed logs per acre, and 

5–7 tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, p.30).

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) 

should average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) 

should average 40+ percent. Opening size is up to 4 acres 

with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group of 

reserve trees, three to five trees per group, will be left if 

the created regeneration opening is greater than an acre 

in size. Leave at least two snags per acre, three downed 

logs per acre, and 5 to 7 tons of woody debris per acre.

In acres managed for an open reference condition, 

canopy cover guidelines for VSS 4 through VSS 6 

groups would not apply. One group of reserve trees, 

with a minimum of one to two trees per group will be 

left if the interspace size is greater than an acre in size. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

478 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Interspace size is up to 4 acres. Leave at least two 

snags per acre, three downed logs per acre, and 5 to7 

tons of woody debris per acre.

Woodland: manage for uneven age conditions to 

sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory 

and understory), age classes, and species 

composition well distributed across the landscape. 

Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody 

debris (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30). 

No Change

Vegetation Management – Within PFAs

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable forest 

environment for the post-fledgling family needs of 

goshawks. The principle difference between within 

the post-fledgling family area and outside the postfledgling family area is the higher canopy cover 

within the post-fledgling family area and smaller 

opening size within the post-fledgling family area. 

Vegetative structural stage distribution and structural 

conditions are the same within and outside the postfledgling family area (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Canopy cover is evaluated at the group level within 

mid-aged to old forest structural stages groups (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not within grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, 

and VSS 3) or in interspaces, natural meadows and 

grasslands, or other areas not managed for forest 

conditions.

Spruce-fir: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 60+% and for mature (VSS 5) and 

old forest (VSS 6) should average 70+% (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy Cover for mid-aged (VSS 4) 

to old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+% (Kaibab 

NF plan, p. 30). 

No Change

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 50+%. 

Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should 

average 50+% (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

Woodland: Maintain existing canopy cover levels 

(Kaibab NF plan, p. 30)

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation 

mosaic: 30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the 

interspaces between groups may range from 20 to 200

feet, but generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 479

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

drip line to adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups 

is not affected by single trees in the interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one 

vegetation structure stage. The spatial arrangement of 

trees, high dispersion of VSS structural stage 

diversity, and interspaces comprise each uneven-aged 

forest stand. Collectively these stands aggregate to 

uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar to natural 

conditions.

Glossary

No corresponding forest plan direction Interspaces: The open space between tree groups 

intended to be managed for grass/forb/shrub 

vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may 

include scattered single trees.

No corresponding forest plan direction Stands: Contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform 

in forest type, composition, structure, and age class 

distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform 

conditions to be a distinguishable unit.

No corresponding forest plan direction Open reference condition: Forested ponderosa pine 

areas with mollic-integrade soils to be managed as a 

relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated 

in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

480 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 53. Alternative B general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 481

Figure 54. Alternative B general locations of savanna and grassland restoration treatments 

(Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

482 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management and the actions. How actions could potentially affect timing, location 

and size, relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was 

evaluated.

Timing: The “Kaibab National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan” has been in place 

(and amended) since 1988 and plan revision efforts are underway. While the amendment does 

provide clarification that has been lacking since the forest plan was implemented, it is specific to 

this project.

Location and Size: Suitable goshawk habitat on the Kaibab NF encompasses approximately 

541,000 acres (Keckler 2011, unpublished data) and the project area is comprised of about 

399,633 acres of goshawk habitat. The amendment would affect approximately 20 percent of all 

suitable goshawk habitats on the forest and about 27 percent of goshawk habitat within the 

project area. For this reason, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: Alternative B would meet goshawk forest plan 

canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to 6 in all acres except the 27,637 acres managed for an 

open reference condition. In all acres but the open reference condition acres, actions would move 

toward the desired VSS size class distribution.

For this reason, the amendment is consistent with forest goals for wildlife and fish that promotes 

improving habitats through the development of habitat quality, diversity, and the identification 

and protection of key habitats. The amendment is consistent with the goal of improving habitats 

for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and other species as 

they become threatened or endangered (Kaibab NF plan, page18). 

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Table 98 displays the acres associated with Kaibab 

NF geographic areas (GAs) and land use zones (LUZ).

Canopy Cover: The acres of forestwide GAs and LUZ affected by the canopy cover portion 

of the amendment (106,585 acres total) would range from less than 1 percent (LUZ 21) to 33 

percent (GA 10). The amendment is specific to this project and would not impose 

requirements on the future management of canopy cover within these acres of goshawk 

habitat. 

Open Reference Condition: The acres of forestwide GAs affected by the open reference 

condition portion of the amendment (27,637 acres total) would range from less than 1 percent 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 483

(GA 1) to 9 percent (GA 2).The amendment is consistent with the management emphasis of 

providing for multiple uses that includes wildlife habitat and moving ponderosa pine toward

desired forest structure, including northern goshawk habitats. The amendment is specific to 

this project and would not impose requirements on the future management of the 27,637 acres 

of goshawk non-PFA; however, forest plan revision decisions may.

Table 98. Alternative B amendment 2 geographic area acres

GA GA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Canopy Cover

GA 2 Williams Forestland 308,394 73,352 24

GA 10 Tusayan Forestland 86,250 28,247 33

GA 3 North Williams 

Woodland

65,533 1,287 2 

GA 1 Western Williams 

Woodland

169,041 1,970 1 

GA 8 Tusayan Woodland 195,118 1,025 1 

LUZ 21 Developed recreation 

sites

1,556 702 <1

Mapping 

Error 

Camp Navajo NA – Not in land 

management plan 

area

2 NA

Open Reference Condition

GA 2 Williams Forestland 308,394 26,831 9 

GA 3 North Williams 

Woodland

65,533 500 1 

GA 1 Western Williams 

Woodland

169,041 302 <1

Mapping 

Error 

Camp Navajo NA – Not in land 

management plan 

area

4 NA

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with sawtimber and 

other product harvest levels (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), commercial and personal use firewood programs (MBF), grazing capacity (AUM), 

watershed (acres in unsatisfactory condition and water yield), developed recreation (management 

of public sites at the standard service level), developed and dispersed recreation outputs (RVD), 

transportation (acres closed to off-road vehicle use), habitat diversity (change in habitat diversity 

index), old growth habitat (acres), and average annual wildlife and fish use (WFUD).

The canopy cover portion of the amendment provides clarification and disclosure of methods for 

meeting forest plan requirements. It has no relationship to outputs or to the relationship between 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

484 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

the level of goods (timber, firewood) and services and would not result in a change to land 

productivity or timber suitability classification.

Managing a portion of the landscape for an open reference condition affects about 27,637 acres of 

an estimated 490,368 acres of suitable timber lands. The management strategy on these acres 

would result in an extended rotation period between treatments beyond what was considered in 

developing the long-term sustained yield output in the forest plan. In the short term (10-year 

period), the amendment affects about 6 percent of the suitable land base. Due to the minimal 

acres affected, the amendment would not measurably alter outputs in the foreseeable future on a 

forestwide basis or change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) 

and services. There would be no change in land productivity; therefore, it would not affect timber 

suitability classification. 

Whether the 27,637 acres would continue to be managed as suitable timber in the long term will 

be evaluated during the forest plan revision process. No portion of the amendment would affect 

decisions that have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted 

livestock use.

Amendment 2. MSO Habitat Management (Kaibab NF)

Amendment 2 is a specific, one-time variance for the Kaibab NF portion of the restoration 

project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. 

The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendment would be 

authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982).

Amendment Description

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for designating 

less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Kaibab NF as target or threshold ( i.e., future 

nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. Definitions of target and 

threshold habitat would be added since the current forest plan refers to “threshold” in terms of 

values and desired conditions (see Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25) within restricted habitat and 

there is no reference to “target” conditions.

The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 

percent increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs 

as controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and posttreatment, population, and habitat monitoring). Replacement language would defer final project 

design and monitoring to the FWS’ biological opinion specific to MSO for the project.

Background

MSO Monitoring

Monitoring assesses the effectiveness of management actions and provides the adaptive 

framework needed to develop successful management. Monitoring habitat facilitates modeling 

future forest conditions to determine if there will be adequate habitat to support MSO 

populations. For this project, the final design of the treatments and monitoring the results of the 

proposed activities in all MSO habitat would be developed in consultation with the FWS.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 485

Manage Up to 10 Percent of Restricted Habitat as Target or Threshold

In 2011, biologists from the Coconino and Kaibab NFs, the 4FRI team, and the FWS worked 

together to develop a geographic layer for restricted habitat across the 4FRI treatment area. Data 

from the Kaibab and Coconino NFs (based on polygons) was merged with pine-oak data from the 

Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (raster data; Dr. Steve Sesnie and Jill 

Rundall, Northern Arizona University). This landscape-scale approach better meets the goal of 

providing continuous replacement nesting and roosting habitat over space and time, as described 

in the previous (1995) recovery plan and the 1996 “Record of Decision for the Amendment of 

Eleven Forest Plans.” A new restricted layer was created within the 4FRI treatment area, 

including designation of target and threshold habitat as described in the 1995 recovery plan. 

The Kaibab NF consists of three disjunct ranger districts. The North Kaibab Ranger District is 

north of the Grand Canyon and in a different recovery unit. No resident MSOs have been 

identified on the North Kaibab and the district is outside the 4FRI planning boundary. The 

Tusayan and Williams districts are both south of the Grand Canyon and in the 4FRI planning 

boundary. The Tusayan district does not include spotted owl habitat, and there are no records of 

spotted owls occurring on the district. The Williams district has limited pine-oak habitat. In 

achieving a landscape-scale assessment for the 4FRI, MSO pine-oak habitat was assessed across 

the Williams district and much of the Coconino NF. 

The MSO recovery plan describes past planning as operating at “limited spatial scale[s]” which 

precludes a more meaningful review of MSO habitat at ecological scales (USDI 1995). The scale 

of the 4FRI and the fact it transcends administrative boundaries allows managers to conduct a 

true landscape-scale analysis. Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI restricted 

habitat would be managed as current or future target or threshold habitat. On the Coconino NF 

portion of the project, where the most owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 13 percent (6,465 

acres) of the restricted layer would be designated as target or threshold habitat. The Kaibab NF 

portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 percent (2,247 acres) of the restricted layer 

designated as target or threshold habitat. By creating more future nesting and roosting habitat on 

the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more contiguous for dispersing MSOs, and occur 

in areas supporting higher densities of MSOs than if 10 percent of the restricted layer was 

designated by individual administrative boundaries. 

Edited or added/new forest plan text is bolded in table 99. 

Table 99. Alternative B amendment 2 MSO proposed forest plan standard and guideline 

language (Kaibab NF)

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

MSO Standards

No corresponding direction currently exists The project will comply with the biological 

opinion that has been developed in 

consultation with FWS.

Provide three levels of habitat management -protected, restricted, 

and other forest and woodland types to achieve a diversity of 

habitat conditions across the landscape (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 22).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

486 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Protected areas include delineated protected activity centers; 

mixed conifer and pine-oak forests with slopes greater than 40% 

where timber harvest has not occurred in the last 20 years; and 

reserved lands which include wilderness, research natural areas, 

wild and scenic rivers, and congressionally recognized wilderness 

study areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 22).

No Change

Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer, pine-oak, and riparian 

forests outside of protected areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

22).

No Change 

Other forest and woodland types include all ponderosa pine, 

spruce-fir, woodland, and aspen forests outside protected and 

restricted areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 22).

No Change

Survey all potential spotted owl areas including protected, 

restricted, and other forest and woodland types within an analysis 

area plus the area 1/2 mile beyond the perimeter of the proposed 

treatment area (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Establish a protected activity center at all Mexican spotted owl 

sites located during surveys and all management territories 

established since 1989 (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood and fire risk 

abatement in established protected activity centers. For protected 

activity centers destroyed by fire, windstorm, or other natural 

disaster, salvage timber harvest or declassification may be allowed 

after evaluation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for fire risk abatement in mixed 

conifer and pine-oak forests on slopes greater than 40% where 

timber harvest has not occurred in the last 20 years (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Limit human activity in protected activity centers during the 

breeding season (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

In protected and restricted areas, when activities conducted in 

conformance with these standards and guidelines may adversely 

affect other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or may 

conflict with other established recovery plans or conservation 

agreements; consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve 

the conflict (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Monitor changes in owl populations and habitat needed for delisting (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).Deleted

Guidelines – A. General – No Change 

Guidelines – B. Protected Areas, Protected Activity Centers

Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres around 

the activity center using boundaries of known habitat 

polygons and/or topographic features. Written 

justification for boundary delineation should be 

No Change 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 487

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

provided (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

The protected activity center boundary should enclose 

the best possible owl habitat configured in as compact 

a unit as possible, with the nest or activity center 

located near the center (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

23).

No Change 

The activity center is defined as the nest site. In the 

absence of a known nest, the activity center should be 

defined as a roost grove commonly used during 

breeding. In the absence of a known nest or roost, the 

activity center should be defined as the best nest/roost 

habitat (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 

Protected activity center boundaries should not 

overlap (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 

Submit protected activity center maps and 

descriptions to the recovery unit working group for 

comment as soon as possible after completion of 

surveys (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 

Road or trail building in protected activity centers 

should be avoided but maybe permitted on a case-bycase basis for pressing management reasons (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Generally allow continuation of the level of recreation 

activities that was occurring prior to listing (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Require bird guides to apply for and obtain a special 

use permit. A condition of the permit shall be that 

they obtain a sub-permit under the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Master endangered species permit. 

The permit should stipulate the sites, dates, number of 

visits and maximum group size permissible (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, pages 23 to 24).

No Change 

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way 

that effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within 

the following limitations to minimize effects on the 

owl (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change 

Retain key forest species such as oak (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 24).

No Change 

Retain key habitat components such as snags and 

large downed logs (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change 

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only 

within those protected activity centers treated to abate 

fire risk as described below (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 24).

No Change 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 24).

No Change 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

488 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Select for treatment 10% of the protected activity 

centers where nest sites are known in each recovery 

unit having high fire risk conditions. Also select 

another 10% of the protected activity centers where 

nest sites are known as a paired sample to serve as 

control areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted

Designate a 100 acre “no treatment” area around the 

known nest site of each selected protected activity 

center. Habitat in the no treatment area should be as 

similar as possible in structure and composition as 

that found in the activity center (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 24).

No Change 

Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in 

diameter, snags, clumps of broad-leafed woody 

vegetation, and hardwood trees larger than 10 inches 

in diameter at the root collar (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 24).

No Change

Select and treat additional protected activity centers in 

10% increments if monitoring of the initial sample 

shows there were no negative impacts or there were 

negative impacts which can be mitigated by 

modifying treatment methods (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 24).

Deleted

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk: Use 

combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter, mechanical fuel treatment, and prescribed 

fire to abate fire risk in the remainder of the selected 

protected activity center outside the 100-acre “no 

treatment” area (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 24).

No Change 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. Select for 

treatment 10% of the protected activity centers where 

nest sites are known in each recovery unit having high 

fire risk conditions. Also select another 10% of the 

protected activity centers where nest sites are known 

as a paired sample to serve as control areas (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 24).

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

Use light prescribed fire in non-selected protected 

activity centers on a case-by-case basis. Burning 

should avoid a 100-acre “no treatment” area around 

the activity center. Large woody debris, snags, clumps 

of broad-leafed woody vegetation should be retained 

and hardwood trees larger than 10 inches diameter at 

the root collar (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24). 

No Change

Pre- and post-treatment monitoring should be 

conducted in all protected activity centers treated for 

fire risk abatement (see monitoring guidelines). 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 489

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Steep Slopes (Mixed conifer and pine-oak forests outside protected activity centers with 

slopes greater than 40% that have not been logged within the past 20 years)

No seasonal restrictions apply. Treat fuel accumulations to abate 

fire risk (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in diameter, 

mechanical fuel removal, and prescribed fire (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 24).

No Change

Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, snags, 

clumps of broad-leafed woody vegetation, and hardwood tress 

larger than 10 inches in diameter at the root collar (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Pre and post treatment monitoring should occur within all steep 

slopes treated for fire risk abatement. (See monitoring guidelines) 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted 

Reserved Lands (Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and Congressionally Recognized Wilderness Study Areas

Allow fire use where appropriate. No Change

C. Restricted Areas (Mixed Conifer, Pine-Oak, and Riparian Forests)

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (See glossary definition)

No corresponding direction Target habitat is a category of restricted 

habitat intended to provide future nesting 

and roosting habitat (see glossary 

definition for restricted habitat). The 

minimum values identified for the forest 

attributes represent the threshold for 

meeting nesting and roosting conditions 

(see the definition for threshold habitat). 

They can also be targets to be achieved 

with time and management. If less than 10 

percent of the restricted habitat in 

ponderosa pine-Gambel oak qualifies as 

threshold habitat, the areas that can 

eventually achieve all threshold conditions 

simultaneously should be identified as 

target habitat and managed to achieve 

threshold conditions as rapidly as possible. 

Because no known nests or roosts occur in 

restricted habitat, target habitat is 

considered future nesting and roosting 

habitat.

No corresponding direction Threshold habitat is a category of 

restricted habitat intended to provide for 

future nesting and roosting habitat (see

definition for restricted habitat). A variety 

of forest structural attributes are used to 

define when nesting and roosting habitat is 

achieved (summarized in table III.B.1 of 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

490 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

the 1995 recovery plan and table C-2 of the 

2012 recovery plan). Threshold habitat 

meets or exceeds these values. When the 

minimum values identified for the forest 

attributes are met simultaneously, they 

represent the threshold of nesting and 

roosting conditions. Up to 10 percent of 

restricted habitat in ponderosa pineGambel oak should be designated as 

threshold habitat. Management in 

threshold habitat cannot lower any of the 

forest attribute values below the nesting 

and roosting threshold unless a landscape 

analysis demonstrates an abundance of 

this habitat. Because no known nests or 

roosts occur in restricted habitat, target 

habitat is managed as future nesting and 

roosting habitat.

Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl nest/roost habitat well 

distributed across the landscape. Create replacement owl 

nest/roost habitat where appropriate while providing a diversity of 

stand conditions across the landscape to ensure habitat for a 

diversity of prey species (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

The following table displays the minimum percentage of restricted 

area which should be managed to have nest/roost characteristics. 

The minimum mixed conifer restricted area includes 10% at 170 

basal area and an additional 15% of area at 150 basal area. The 

variables are for stand averages, are minimum threshold values 

and must be met simultaneously. In project design, no stands 

simultaneously meeting or exceeding the minimum threshold 

values should be reduced below the threshold values unless a 

districtwide or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas shows 

that there is a surplus of restricted area acres simultaneously 

meeting the threshold values. Management should be designed to 

create minimum threshold conditions on project areas where there 

is a deficit of stands simultaneously meeting minimum threshold

conditions unless the districtwide or larger landscape analysis 

shows there is a surplus (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

Table 13 displays the minimum percentage 

of restricted area which should be managed to 

have nest/roost characteristics. The minimum 

mixed conifer restricted area includes 10

percent at 170 basal area and an additional 15

percent of area at 150 basal area. In pineoak, the restricted area includes up to 10

percent at 170 BA and 15 percent of area 

at 150 basal area. The variables are for stand 

averages, are minimum threshold values and 

must be met simultaneously. In project 

design, no stands simultaneously meeting or

exceeding the minimum threshold values 

should be reduced below the threshold values 

unless a districtwide or larger landscape 

analysis of restricted areas shows that there is 

a surplus of restricted area acres 

simultaneously meeting the threshold values. 

Management should be designed to create 

minimum target and threshold habitat

conditions on project areas where there is a 

deficit of stands simultaneously meeting 

minimum threshold habitat conditions unless 

the districtwide or larger landscape analysis 

shows there is a surplus.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 491

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Minimum Percentage of Restricted Areas Managed for Nest/Roost Characteristics

Variable Mixed Conifer

All RU

Mixed Conifer

Other RU*

Pine-Oak Target and 

Threshold Habitat**

Restricted Area Percent 10% +15% Up to 10%

Stand Averages for:

Basal Area 170 150 150

18 inch+ trees/ac 20 20 20

Oak Basal Area NA NA 20

Percent total existing:

12–18 inches 10 10 15

18–24 inches 10 10 15

24+ inches 10 10 15

*Mixed Conifer Other RU applies to the Kaibab NF. 

**Pine-Oak Target and Threshold Habitat applies to the Williams RD, Kaibab NF.

Attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns by incorporating 

natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various patch 

sizes, into management prescriptions (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

25). 

No Change

Maintain all species of native trees in the landscape including 

early seral species (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus producing 

horizontal variation in stand structure (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 25).

No Change

Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands to greater than 200 

years. Silvicultural prescriptions should explicitly state when 

vegetative manipulation will cease until rotation age is reached 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25). 

No Change

Save all trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. In pine-oak forests, 

retain existing large oaks and promote growth of additional large 

oaks (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Encourage prescribed and wildland fire use to reduce hazardous 

fuel accumulation. Thinning from below may be desirable or 

necessary before burning to reduce ladder fuels and the risk of 

crown fire (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat components: Snags 18 

inches in diameter and larger down logs over 12 inches midpoint 

diameter hardwoods for retention, recruitment, and replacement of 

large hardwoods (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

492 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Riparian Areas – No Change

Domestic Livestock Grazing – No Change

Old Growth – No Change

D. Other Forest and Woodland Types – No Change

E. Specific Recovery Units on the Kaibab NF – No Change

F. Monitoring Guidelines 

Monitoring and evaluation should be collaboratively planned and 

coordinated with involvement from each national forest, USFWS 

Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS Regional Office, USFS 

Regional Office, Rocky Mountain Research Station, recovery 

team, and recovery unit working groups (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 26).

See “Standards” for monitoring direction

Population monitoring should be a collaborative effort with 

participation of all appropriate resource agencies (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 26).

Deleted

Habitat monitoring of gross habitat changes should be a 

collaborative effort of all appropriate resource agencies (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 26).

Deleted

Habitat monitoring of treatment effects (pre- and post-treatment) 

should be done by the agency conducting the treatment (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted

Rangewide: Track gross changes in acres of owl habitat resulting 

from natural and human caused disturbances. Acreage changes in 

vegetation composition, structure, and density should be tracked, 

evaluated, and reported. Remote sensing techniques should 

provide an adequate level of accuracy (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 27).

Deleted

In protected and restricted areas where silvicultural or fire 

abatement treatments are planned, monitor treated stands pre- and 

post-treatment to determine changes and trajectories in fuel levels; 

snag basal areas; live tree basal areas; volume of down logs over 

12 inches in diameter; and basal area of hardwood trees over 10 

inches in diameter at the root crown (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

27).

Deleted

Upper Gila Mountain, Basin and Range East, and Basin and 

Range West Recovery Units: Assist the recovery team and 

recovery unit working groups to establish sampling units 

consisting of 19 to 39 square mile quadrats randomly allocated to 

habitat strata. Quadrats should be defined based on ecological 

boundaries such as ridge lines and watersheds. Quadrat boundaries 

should not traverse owl territories (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

27).

Deleted
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 493

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Standard or 

Guideline Language*

Twenty percent of the quadrats will be replaced each year at 

random. Using the sample quadrats, monitor the number of 

territorial individuals and pairs per quadrat; reproduction; apparent 

survival; recruitment; and age structure. Track population density 

both per quadrat and habitat stratum (Kaibab NF Land 

Management Plan, page 27).

Deleted

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.

Figure 55. Alternative B amendment 2 landscape target and threshold analysis
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

494 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 56. Alternative B–D MSO target and threshold habitat on the Kaibab NF
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 495

Figure 57. Project-scale designated MSO target and threshold habitat

Consistency with the MSO Recovery Plan

This amendment would allow for managing less than 10 percent of the designated restricted 

habitat as nest and roost habitat. MSO habitat is generally more abundant, more contiguous, and 

of higher quality on the Coconino NF than the Kaibab NF. This conclusion is based on forest data 

queries, years of on-the-ground experience of participants in the development of the restricted 

layer, and on presumed choices made by the owls themselves. MSOs are abundant and 

concentrated in pine-oak habitat on the Coconino NF. In contrast, there is only a single MSO 

detection dating from 1994 in pine-oak habitat on the Kaibab NF. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

496 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

The recovery plan describes past planning as operating at “limited spatial scale[s]” which 

precludes a more meaningful review of MSO habitat at ecological scales (USDI 1995). The scale 

of the 4FRI and the fact it transcends administrative boundaries allows managers to conduct a 

true landscape-scale analysis. Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI restricted 

habitat would be managed as current or future target or threshold habitat. On the Coconino NF 

portion of the project, where the most owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 13 percent (6,465 

acres) of the restricted layer would be designated as target or threshold habitat. 

The Kaibab NF portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 percent (2,247 acres) of the 

restricted layer designated as target or threshold habitat. By creating more future nesting and 

roosting habitat on the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more contiguous, better 

connected for dispersing MSOs, and occur in areas supporting higher densities of MSOs than if 

10 percent of the restricted layer was designated by individual administrative boundaries.

This amendment meets the intent of the 1995 and revised (2012) recovery plan by reducing the 

potential for creating excessively fragmented habitat and managing stands based on their 

capability to attain desired stand conditions. This amendment does affect habitat designated in 

previous projects or in mixed-conifer habitat.

Adding a definition of target and threshold (restricted) habitat would be consistent with the 

desired conditions in the recovery plan (1995 and 2012 version). Although restricted habitat is 

referred to as “recovery habitat” and nest/roost habitat in the 2012 revised plan (USDI 2012, pp. 

3, 4), the project’s desired conditions for nesting and roosting habitat is consistent with the 

revised recovery plan. The revised plan still recommends that a percentage (10 to 25 percent) of 

recovery habitat be managed as nesting/roosting (USDI 2012, page VIII). Using habitat with the 

best potential, the project would move toward desired percentages in recovery habitat. 

Amendment 2 would provide additional site-specific requirements at the project scale that would 

not be precluded by the revised forest plan or the new recovery plan (USDI 2012). Specific 

treatments have been designed to move toward improving the quality and quantity of target and 

threshold habitat that occurs within restricted habitat. 

Deferring monitoring and incremental treatments to the FWS biological opinion would be 

consistent with the revised recovery plan (2012). The new recovery plan defers monitoring 

requirements to the management agency and treatment in incremental amounts is not 

recommended in the plan.

Significance Evaluation

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place and amended several times since 

1988, and revision efforts are underway. The forest plan incorporated direction (via an 

amendment) from the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s 1996 “Amendment of Forest Plans 

Record of Decision” (USDA 1996). The actions allowed via the amendment are consistent with 

existing forest plan direction in that it improves nesting and rooting habitat, reduces the risk of 

loss from fire, and will comply with the site-specific treatment and monitoring requirements in 

the FWS biological opinion. Forest plan direction may be amended to incorporate the revised 

MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012) which recognizes that habitat restoration, in addition to the 

reduction of fire risk, is key to improving habitat quality. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 497

Location and Size: There are 26,818 acres of MSO restricted habitat occurring entirely on the 

Kaibab NF. The amendment would affect the percentage of restricted acres designated as 

threshold habitat (8 percent), resulting in 2,247 acres on the Kaibab NF. About 11.5 percent of the 

designated restricted habitat would be managed for future nesting/roosting habitat across the 4FRI 

treatment area. Monitoring in all MSO habitat would be in compliance with the FWS biological 

opinion for the project. 

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment is consistent with forest plan 

goals for wildlife and fish of managing habitat to improve habitat quality and diversity in both the 

short and long term, to improve diversity and provide quality old-growth habitats (Kaibab 

National Forest plan, page 12), and to improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species of plants and animals and work toward recovery and delisting of species (Kaibab 

National Forest plan, page 18). 

Changing the minimal target/threshold acres in restricted habitat (2,247 acres) would not change 

the overall direction to manage for future nesting/roosting habitat on 10 percent of restricted acres 

across the planning area landscape as described in the forest plan. About 8,713 acres (about 111⁄2 

percent) are classified as target and threshold habitat in the 4FRI treatment area on both the 

Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. 

The amendment removes language that addresses pre- and post-treatment, population and habitat 

monitoring and replaces it with language that focuses on implementing the requirements in the 

FWS biological opinion. Delaying treatment in and adjacent to the Kendrick PAC would leave 

occupied MSO habitat at risk of loss from high-severity fire. Arizona’s two largest fires account 

for nearly a million and half acres of forested land burned since 2002. Both fires included highseverity fire in PAC habitat. Other fires burning in the Upper Gila Recovery Unit have charred 

additional acres of MSO protected habitat. Most climate models suggest that the Southwest will 

experience higher temperatures and increased variability in precipitation, which will significantly 

affect fire regimes and forest health (Aumack et al. 2007). 

The FWS urges a deliberate and cautious approach to management activities within PACs (USDI 

2012). Silvicultural modeling of the proposed treatments indicates limited change to forest 

structure after implementation. However, the treatments are expected to include increased tree 

growth rates to reduce the time needed to for developing large trees (defined as 18-inch d.b.h. and 

greater in the current recovery plan for the MSO), maintaining existing large trees, and decreasing 

surface fuels and increasing crown base height. Combined, this is should develop and maintain 

MSO nesting and roosting habitat, a key aspect of the recovery plans, while decreasing risk of 

crown fire.

Forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments would be evaluated over time. Monitoring would 

be designed and implemented to evaluate the effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments on spotted owl habitat, and to retain or move toward MSO desired future 

conditions as described in the recovery plan. The details on accomplishing the monitoring goals 

will be developed specifically for this approach through coordination with the FWS under formal 

consultation, as described in the ESA. In this way, work to protect and improve owl habitat can be 

accomplished in a timely manner while emphasizing monitoring and feedback loops to allow 

management to be adaptive. For these reasons, the amendment as it relates to pre- and posttreatment, population and habitat monitoring is consistent with forest plan goals and objectives.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

498 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Designating target or threshold habitat in the project with the best potential would move toward

desired percentages in restricted (recovery) habitat, consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives.

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: The intent of managing 2,247 acres of restricted 

habitat to current or future threshold conditions is consistent with the management emphasis of 

providing for multiple uses that includes wildlife habitat and meeting MSO standards and 

guidelines which emphasize improving and maintaining the quality of the habitat and moving 

ponderosa pine toward desired forest structure, including MSO habitats (table 100). The 

amendment would affect about 8 percent of all MSO restricted habitat on the Kaibab NF and less 

than 1 percent of GA 2.

Table 100. Alternative B Kaibab NF amendment 2 GA acres

GA GA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Restricted Habitat

GA-2 Williams Forestland 308,394 2,247 < 0.01

Relationship to Outputs: In comparison to the forest’s total suitable timber lands (479,132 

acres), the amendment would affect less than 0.01 percent of those lands. For this reason, 

mechanical treatment within current MSO threshold or future threshold (i.e., target) habitat would 

not measurably increase or decrease timber outputs or firewood availability. There would be no 

measurable effect to outputs managing from deferring the final design of treatments and 

monitoring to the project’s biological opinion. The amendment would not affect decisions that 

have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted livestock use.

Alternative C – Coconino National Forest 

Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Three site-specific, nonsignificant forest plan amendments are proposed for alternative C.

Related Planning Efforts

A revised MSO recovery plan, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter referred to 

as FWS) was finalized in December of 2012 (USDI 2012). The current forest plan is consistent 

with the previous recovery plan (USDI 1995). At some point in time, the Coconino NF may 

amend its forest plan to be consistent with the revised recovery plan. For this analysis, a forest 

plan amendment would be needed to utilize the revised recovery plan direction if it is different 

than what is currently included in the Coconino NF forest plan. 

Currently, the Coconino NF is revising its forest plan. An analysis was conducted to determine 

how the proposed amendments align with the draft plan (as currently written) (USDA 2011). A 

revised forest plan may affect the need for amendments 1 through 3 in the following ways: 

Amendment 1 would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as currently written) in that 

it defers management of MSOs to direction in the MSO recovery plan. The revised (2012) 

MSO recovery plan does not limit tree removal from within PACs to a specific d.b.h., does 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 499

not require a specific method for habitat monitoring, the proposed basal area in nest/roost 

habitat is referenced in the 2012 revised plan, and the plan allows for the use of prescribed 

fire within PAC core areas outside the breeding season.

In the recovery plan, project monitoring is deferred to the management agency. For this 

project, monitoring would be determined in consultation with the FWS. Amendment 1 could 

be retained as it would provide additional site-specific direction for implementation at the 

project scale that would not be precluded by the forest plan or recovery plans.

Although restricted habitat is referred to as “recovery habitat” and “nest/roost habitats” in the 

2012 revised plan (USDI 2012, pp. 3, 4), the project’s desired conditions for nesting and 

roosting habitat is consistent with the revised recovery plan. The revised plan still 

recommends that a percentage (10 to 25 percent) of recovery habitat be managed as 

nesting/roosting (USDI 2012, page VIII). Designating habitat in the project with the best 

potential would move toward desired percentages in recovery habitat. Amendment 1 would 

provide additional site-specific requirements at the project scale that would not be precluded 

by the revised forest plan or the revised recovery plan (USDI 2012). 

Amendment 2: Canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 and managing goshawk 

habitat for a balance of VSS is presented differently in the current draft forest plan (USDA 

2011, pages 51 to 54). Amendment 2 would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as 

currently written) as it: (1) provides for managing crowns of trees within the mid-aged to old 

groups as interlocking or nearly interlocking (USDA 2011 page 53); (2) manages forest 

conditions in goshawk PFAs with 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree 

groups than in goshawk foraging areas and general forest (USDA 2011, Page 51); (3) 

manages for goshawk nest areas (known and replacement) (USDA 2011, page 53); and (4) 

generally maintains three to five reserve trees in management created openings greater than 1 

acre in ponderosa pine in goshawk foraging areas and PFAs (USDA 2011 page 54), with the 

exception of acres managed for an open reference condition. 

The draft forest plan (as currently written) allow for project specific plan amendments. The 

portion of the amendment that allows deviation from maintaining three to five reserve trees 

and having openings up to 90 percent for lands managed for an open reference condition 

would be consistent with what is allowed at the project level. At the landscape scale, the 

project would be consistent with the draft desired conditions for ponderosa pine which states, 

“Forest appearance is variable but generally uneven-aged and open; occasional areas of evenaged structure are present. The forest arrangement is in individual trees, small clumps, and 

groups of trees interspersed within variably sized openings of grass/forb/shrub vegetation 

associations similar to historic patterns. Size, shape, number of trees per group, and number 

of groups per area are variable across the landscape” (USDA 2011, page 51). The terms 

“interspaces” and “open reference condition” do not appear in the draft forest plans (as 

written). The amendment would need to continue providing this definition. The definition of 

“stand” could be removed from the amendment (USDA 2011, page 225). The amendment 

would provide additional site-specific direction and definitions that apply to landscape 

restoration that are not precluded by the draft forest plan. 

Amendment 3 would not be required. As currently written, the draft forest plan desired 

condition is to generally manage for no adverse effects and minimize adverse impacts or 

impacts through consultation (USDA 2012).
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

500 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Amendment 1. MSO Habitat Management (Coconino NF)

Amendment 1 is a specific, one-time variance for managing MSO habitat on the Coconino NF in 

the 4FRI restoration project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would 

apply to the project area. The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The 

amendments would be authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(NFMA) and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

Amendment 1 would allow mechanical treatments up to 18-inch d.b.h. to improve habitat 

structure (nesting and roosting habitat) in 18 MSO PACs. It would allow low intensity prescribed 

fire within 56 MSO PAC core areas. The amendment would remove language that limits PAC 

treatments in the recovery unit to 10 percent increments and language that requires the selection 

of an equal number of untreated PACs as controls. The amendment would remove language 

referencing monitoring (pre- and post-treatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language 

would defer final project design and monitoring to the FWS’ biological opinion specific to MSO 

for the project.

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for designating 

less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Coconino NF as target or threshold ( i.e., future 

nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. Definitions of target and 

threshold habitat would be added since the current forest plan refers to “threshold” in terms of 

values and desired conditions (see Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-3.) within restricted habitat, 

and there is no reference to “target” conditions. In restricted pine-oak habitat, it would allow 

6,321 acres of restricted target or threshold habitat to be managed for a minimum range of 110 to 

150 basal area.

Background

In 2011, biologists from the Coconino and Kaibab NFs, the 4FRI team, and the FWS worked 

together to review individual MSO PACs within the project area. The evaluation process includes 

site visits and modeling silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire to move existing owl habitat 

toward the desired conditions described in the 1995 MSO recovery plan (USDI 1995) and forest 

plan. 

There are 99 PACs within the 4FRI project area and 72 PACs within the treatment area. Of the 72 

PACs, 18 were identified as having habitat that could be improved with vegetation treatments. No 

PACs proposed for treatment are located in designated wilderness. Each stand within the 18 PACs 

was modeled to identify treatments that would yield the best existing and future MSO habitat 

conditions. See the wildlife specialist report “Methodology” section for complete details on the 

habitat evaluation process. 

Mechanical Treatment Up to 18-inch d.b.h. in Select PACs (7,353 acres)

MSO PAC field reviews, data evaluation, and vegetation simulation modeling indicated 18 MSO 

PACs (approximately 3,388 acres or 10 percent of all PACs acres within the treatment area) 

would move toward recovery plan desired conditions from mechanically cutting trees up to 9-

inch d.b.h. Treatments up to 9-inch d.b.h. are consistent with the forest plan. See the wildlife 

specialist report “Methodology” section for complete details on the habitat evaluation process.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 501

An additional 7,353 acres within 18 PACs would have nesting and roosting habitat benefits from 

cutting trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. Mechanical treatments above 9-inch d.b.h. would facilitate the 

removal of ladder and canopy fuels which would reduce the fire risk in the 18 PACs. Increasing 

the range of the mechanical treatment thresholds up to 18-inch d.b.h. within 18 MSO PACs would 

provide for a higher degree of stand structure improvements to nesting and roosting habitat. The 

proposal addresses comments from the FWS and is in alignment with the revised MSO recovery 

plan (USDI 2012). Figure 58 displays the general location of mechanical treatment up to 18-inch 

d.b.h., prescribed fire, and areas where no treatment is proposed within MSO PACs. 

Prescribed Fire Within 56 PAC Core Areas (About 5,600 acres)

In order to improve habitat conditions outside of the 100-acre core area within 56 PACs, there is a 

need to use prescribed fire within select PAC core areas. Without the use of low-intensity 

prescribed fire within the core, each core area would need to have fire line constructed around it 

to prevent fire from entering the nest site during treatment in the surrounding PAC habitat. 

Depending on site and weather conditions, this could be anything from a 3-foot-wide hand line to 

a dozer line. The number of acres potentially affected from fire line activities within PACs would 

likely range from 0.80 (hand line) acre to 3.2 (dozer) acres. Most fire line would require posttreatment habitat rehabilitation.

Burning in MSO PACs is difficult as there is a need to address the high fuel loadings while 

maintaining many of the habitat elements that contribute to fuel loading. Burning has to be 

conducted in a very short timeframe to avoid the breeding season (i.e., the nonbreeding season – 

September 1 to February 28). Lining 56 core areas greater than or equal to 100 acres would be 

expensive in terms of time, money, and other resource commitments. In many projects, PAC 

treatments have been eliminated for these reasons. Applying low intensity prescribed burning 

within the 100-acre core areas would eliminate the need for fire line construction and would 

potentially minimize impacts on at least 179 acres of protected habitat. Figure 59 displays the 

general location of MSO PACs proposed for prescribed burning including where burning would 

occur within core areas.

Manage Up to 10 Percent of Restricted Habitat as Target or Threshold

In 2011, biologists from the Coconino and Kaibab NFs, the 4FRI team, and the FWS worked 

together to develop a geographic layer for restricted habitat across the 4FRI treatment area. Data 

from the Kaibab and Coconino NFs (based on polygons) was merged with pine-oak data from the 

Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (raster data; Dr. Steve Sesnie and Jill 

Rundall, Northern Arizona University). This landscape-scale approach better meets the goal of 

providing continuous replacement nesting and roosting habitat over space and time, as described 

in the previous (1995) recovery plan and the 1996 “Record of Decision for the Amendment of 

Eleven Forest Plans.” A new restricted layer was created within the 4FRI treatment area, 

including designation of target and threshold habitat as described in the recovery plan. 

The Kaibab NF consists of three disjunct ranger districts. The North Kaibab Ranger District is 

north of the Grand Canyon and in a different recovery unit. No resident MSOs have been 

identified on the North Kaibab and the district is outside the 4FRI planning boundary. The 

Tusayan and Williams districts are both south of the Grand Canyon and in the 4FRI planning 

boundary. The Tusayan district does not include spotted owl habitat and there are no records of 

spotted owls occurring on the district. The Williams district has limited pine-oak habitat. In 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

502 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

achieving a landscape-scale assessment for the 4FRI, MSO pine-oak habitat was assessed across 

the Williams district and much of the Coconino NF. 

The MSO recovery plan describes past planning as operating at “limited spatial scale[s]” which 

precludes a more meaningful review of MSO habitat at ecological scales (USDI 1995). The scale 

of the 4FRI and the fact it transcends administrative boundaries allows managers to conduct a 

true landscape-scale analysis. Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI restricted 

habitat would be managed as current or future target or threshold habitat. On the Coconino NF 

portion of the project, where the most owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 13 percent (6,465 

acres) of the restricted layer would be designated as target or threshold habitat. The Kaibab NF 

portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 percent (2,247 acres) of the restricted layer 

designated as target or threshold habitat. By creating more future nesting and roosting habitat on 

the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more contiguous for dispersing MSOs, and occur 

in areas supporting higher densities of MSOs than if 10 percent of the restricted layer was 

designated by individual administrative boundaries (see figure 60 and figure 62). 

Manage 6,321 Acres of MSO Restricted Target and 

Threshold Habitat for a Minimum of 110 to 150 Basal Area

The development of 6,321 acres of restricted target and threshold habitats would be managed 

toward meeting a 110 to 150 basal area for MSO nest and roost habitat as recommended in the 

revised MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012). It would allow more of the uncharacteristic in-growth 

of mid-aged and mid-sized trees that currently dominate the 4FRI landscape to be removed while 

retaining nesting and roosting habitat components. Thinning more of these trees would improve 

forest health, increasing the ability to retain large trees and increase large tree growth rates as 

described in the revised recovery plan (USDI 2012). This would increase forest spatial 

heterogeneity, improve tree age diversity, and benefit prey habitat. Increasing the basal area range 

would provide opportunities to mimic canopy gap processes which produce horizontal variation 

in stand structure. These changes would both increase and retain nesting and roosting structure 

and increase understory cover. Research suggests that small mammal biomass (including voles 

and mice) drives spotted owl reproductive output, and thinning smaller trees would improve 

subcanopy flight zone, thereby increasing MSO foraging effectiveness. Figure 60 displays the 

extent of the landscape analysis conducted to designate MSO restricted habitat for the project. 

Figure 61 displays the project’s designated MSO restricted habitat.

Monitoring Responses to MSO Treatments

Monitoring assesses the effectiveness of management actions and provides the adaptive 

framework needed to develop successful management. Monitoring habitat facilitates modeling 

future forest conditions to determine if there will be adequate habitat to support MSO 

populations. For this project, the final design of the treatments and monitoring the results of the 

proposed activities in all MSO habitat would be developed in consultation with the FWS. Edited 

or added/new text is bolded in table 101. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 503

Table 101. Alternative C amendment 1 MSO current and proposed forest plan language 

(Coconino NF)

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

MSO Standards

No corresponding direction currently exists The project will comply with the biological opinion that 

has been developed in consultation with the FWS.

Provide three levels of habitat management - 

protected, restricted, and other forest and woodland 

types to achieve a diversity of habitat conditions 

across the landscape (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 

65).

No Change

Protected areas include delineated protected activity 

centers; mixed conifer and pine-oak forests with 

slopes greater than 40% where timber harvest has 

not occurred in the last 20 years; and reserved lands 

which include wilderness, research natural areas, 

wild and scenic rivers, and congressionally 

recognized wilderness study areas (Coconino NF 

forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer, pine-oak, 

and riparian forests outside of protected areas

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Other forest and woodland types include all 

ponderosa pine, spruce-fir, woodland, and aspen 

forests outside protected and restricted areas 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Survey all potential spotted owl areas including 

protected, restricted, and other forest and woodland 

types within an analysis area plus the area 1/2 mile 

beyond the perimeter of the proposed treatment area 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Establish a protected activity center at all Mexican 

spotted owl sites located during surveys and all 

management territories established since 1989 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood and fire 

risk abatement in established protected activity 

centers. For protected activity centers destroyed by 

fire, windstorm, or other natural disaster, salvage 

timber harvest or declassification may be allowed 

after evaluation on a case-by-case basis in 

consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65).

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood and fire risk 

abatement in established protected activity centers except 

as follows: Allow firewood, fire risk abatement, and 

habitat structure improvement in the following 

established protected activity centers: Lake No. 

1/Seruchos, Archies, Red Hill, Crawdad, Holdup, 

Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, Mayflower 

Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, Rock Top, Lee 

Butte, Foxhole, Bar M, and Sawmill Spring. For 

protected activity centers destroyed by fire, windstorm, or 

other natural disaster, salvage timber harvest or 

declassification may be allowed after evaluation on a caseby-case basis in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

504 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

Allow no timber harvest except for fire risk 

abatement in mixed conifer and pine-oak forests on 

slopes greater than 40% where timber harvest has 

not occurred in the last 20 years (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65). 

No Change

Limit human activity in protected activity centers 

during the breeding season (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65). 

No Change

In protected and restricted areas, when activities 

conducted in conformance with these standards and 

guidelines may adversely affect other threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species or may conflict with 

other established recovery plans or conservation 

agreements; consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to resolve the conflict (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Monitor changes in owl populations and habitat 

needed for delisting (Coconino NF forest plan, page 

65-1). 

See “Standards” for monitoring direction

Guidelines – General – No Change

Guidelines – Protected Areas, Protected Activity Centers

Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres around 

the activity center using boundaries of known habitat 

polygons and/or topographic features. Written 

justification for boundary delineation should be 

provided (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-1). 

No Change 

The protected activity center boundary should 

enclose the best possible owl habitat configured in as 

compact a unit as possible, with the nest or activity 

center located near the center (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 65-1). 

No Change

The activity center is defined as the nest site. In the 

absence of a known nest, the activity center should 

be defined as a roost grove commonly used during 

breeding. In the absence of a known nest or roost, 

the activity center should be defined as the best 

nest/roost habitat (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1).

No Change

Protected activity center boundaries should not 

overlap (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Submit protected activity center maps and 

descriptions to the recovery unit working group for 

comment as soon as possible after completion of 

surveys (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 505

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

Road or trail building in protected activity centers 

should be avoided but maybe permitted on a caseby-case basis for pressing management reasons 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1).

No Change

Generally allow continuation of the level of 

recreation activities that was occurring prior to 

listing (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Require bird guides to apply for and obtain a special 

use permit. A condition of the permit shall be that 

they obtain a subpermit under the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Master Endangered Species permit. 

The permit should stipulate the sites, dates, number 

of visits, and maximum group size permissible 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-1). 

No Change

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way 

that effects on the owl are minimized. Manage 

within the following limitations to minimize effects 

on the owl (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-2).

Retain key forest species such as oak.

Retain key habitat components such as snags and 

large downed logs.

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only 

within those protected activity centers treated to 

abate fire risk as described below, except for the 

Clark PAC where trees less than 16 inches 

diameter will be harvested. 

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way that 

effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within the 

following limitations to minimize effects on the owl. 

Retain key forest species such as oak.

Retain key habitat components such as snags and large 

downed logs.

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only within 

those protected activity centers treated to abate fire risk as 

described below, except for the Clark PAC where trees less 

than 16 inches diameter will be harvested area except as 

follows:

Harvest conifers up to 18-inch diameter within the 

Lake No. 1/Seruchos, Archies, Red Hill, Crawdad, 

Holdup, Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, 

Mayflower Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, 

Rock Top, Lee Butte, Foxhole, Bar M, and Sawmill 

Spring PACs to abate fire risk and improve habitat 

structure. 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. 

–Select for treatment 10% of the protected activity 

centers where nest sites are known in each recovery 

unit having high fire risk conditions. Also select 

another 10% of the protected activity centers where 

nest sites are known as a paired sample to serve as 

control areas (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-2). 

–Designate a 100-acre “no treatment” area around 

the known nest site of each selected protected 

activity center. Habitat in the no treatment area 

should be as similar as possible in structure and 

composition as that found in the activity center.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 

inches in diameter (or less than 16 inches in the 

Clark PAC), mechanical fuel treatment and 

prescribed fire to abate fire risk in the remainder of 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Designate a 100-acre “no treatment” area around the 

known nest site of each selected protected activity center. 

Habitat in the no treatment area should be as similar as 

possible in structure and composition as that found in the 

activity center.

– Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter (or less than 16 inches in the Clark PAC), 

mechanical treatment and prescribed fire to abate fire risk 

in the remainder of the selected protected activity center 

outside the 100-acre “no treatment” area except as follows:

Use combinations of thinning trees up to 18-inch d.b.h.

within the Lake No. 1/Seruchos, Archies, Red Hill, 

Holdup, Rock Top, Foxhole, Bar M, PACs, Crawdad, 

Bonita Tank, Red Raspberry, Bear Seep, Mayflower 

Tank, Knob, T6 Tank, Iris Tank, Frank, Lee Butte, and 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

506 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

the selected protected activity center outside the 100-

acre “no treatment” area.

Sawmill Springs PACs, mechanical fuel treatment and 

prescribed fire to abate fire risk and improve habitat 

structure in the remainder of the selected protected 

activity center outside the 100-acre “no treatment” 

area. Use low intensity prescribed fire within 56 select 

100-acre core areas to eliminate the need for fire line

construction. 

– Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, 

snags, clumps of broad-leafed woody vegetation, and 

hardwood trees larger than 10 inches in diameter at the root 

collar.

–Use light prescribed burns in nonselected protected 

activity centers on a case-by-case basis. Burning should 

avoid a 100-acre “no treatment” area around the activity 

center except as follows: Use low intensity prescribed 

fire within 56 select 100-acre core areas to eliminate the 

need for fire line construction. Large woody debris, 

snags, clumps of broad-leafed woody vegetation should be 

retained and hardwood trees larger than 10 inches diameter 

at the root collar.

–See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. Pre and 

post treatment monitoring should be conducted in all 

protected activity centers treated for fire risk 

abatement. (See monitoring guidelines) (Coconino 

NF forest plan, page 65-2)

Steep Slopes (Mixed conifer and pine-oak forests outside 

protected activity centers with slopes greater than 40% that have 

not been logged within the past 20 years): No seasonal restrictions apply.

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 

inches in diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and 

prescribed fire.

–Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in 

diameter, snags, clumps of broadleafed woody 

vegetation, and hardwood trees larger than 10 inches 

in diameter at the root collar.

– Pre and post treatment monitoring should occur 

within all steep slopes treated for fire risk abatement. 

(See monitoring guidelines)

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

–Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and prescribed fire.

–Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, 

snags, clumps of broadleafed woody vegetation, and 

hardwood trees larger than 10 inches in diameter at the root 

collar.

–See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

Reserved Lands (Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, and Congressionally Recognized Wilderness 

Study Areas): Allow prescribed fire where appropriate – No Change

Restricted Areas (Mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forests)

No corresponding direction Target habitat is a category of restricted habitat 

intended to provide future nesting and roosting habitat 

(see glossary definition for restricted habitat). The 

minimum values identified for the forest attributes 

represent the threshold for meeting nesting and 

roosting conditions (see the definition for threshold 

habitat). They can also be targets to be achieved with 

time and management. If less than 10 percent of the 

restricted habitat in ponderosa pine-Gambel oak 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 507

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

qualifies as threshold habitat, the areas that can 

eventually achieve all threshold conditions 

simultaneously should be identified as target habitat 

and managed to achieve threshold conditions as rapidly 

as possible. Because no known nests or roosts occur in 

restricted habitat, target habitat is considered future 

nesting and roosting habitat.

No corresponding direction Threshold habitat is a category of restricted habitat 

intended to provide for future nesting and roosting 

habitat (see definition for restricted habitat). A variety 

of forest structural attributes are used to define when 

nesting and roosting habitat is achieved (summarized in 

table III.B.1 of the 1995 recovery plan and table C-2 of 

the 2012 recovery plan). Threshold habitat meets or 

exceeds these values. When the minimum values 

identified for the forest attributes are met 

simultaneously, they represent the threshold of nesting 

and roosting conditions. Up to 10 percent of restricted 

habitat in ponderosa pine-Gambel oak should be 

designated as threshold habitat. Management in 

threshold habitat cannot lower any of the forest 

attribute values below the nesting and roosting 

threshold unless a landscape analysis demonstrates an 

abundance of this habitat. Because no known nests or 

roosts occur in restricted habitat, target habitat is 

managed as future nesting and roosting habitat.

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (See glossary 

definition): Manage to ensure a sustained level of 

owl nest/roost habitat well distributed across the 

landscape. Create replacement owl nest/roost habitat 

where appropriate while providing a diversity of 

stand conditions across the landscape to ensure 

habitat for a diversity of prey species. The following 

table displays the minimum percentage of restricted 

area which should be managed to have nest/roost 

characteristics. The minimum mixed conifer 

restricted area includes 10% at 170 basal area and an 

additional amount of area at 150 basal area. The 

additional area of 150 basal area is +10% in BR-E 

and +15% in all other recovery units. The variables 

are for stand averages and are minimum threshold 

values and must be met simultaneously. In project 

design, no stands simultaneously meeting or 

exceeding the minimum threshold values should be 

reduced below the threshold values unless a districtwide or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas 

shows that there is a surplus of restricted area acres 

simultaneously meeting the threshold values. 

Management should be designed to create minimum 

threshold conditions on project areas where there is a 

deficit of stands simultaneously meeting minimum 

threshold conditions unless the district-wide or 

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (See glossary

definition): Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl 

nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape. 

Create replacement owl nest/roost habitat where 

appropriate while providing a diversity of stand conditions 

across the landscape to ensure habitat for a diversity of 

prey species. The following table displays the minimum 

percentage of restricted area which should be managed to 

have nest/roost characteristics. The minimum mixed 

conifer restricted area includes up to 10 percent at 170 

basal area and an additional amount of area at 150 basal 

area. The additional area of 150 basal area is +10 percent in 

BR-E and +15 percent in all other recovery units. In pineoak, the minimum restricted area includes up to 10

percent at 110 to 150 basal area. The variables are for 

stand averages and are minimum target and threshold 

habitat values and must be met simultaneously. In project 

design, no stands simultaneously meeting or exceeding the 

minimum target and threshold habitat values should be 

reduced below target and threshold values unless a 

districtwide or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas 

shows that there is a surplus of restricted area acres 

simultaneously meeting target and threshold values. 

Management should be designed to create minimum target 

and threshold habitat conditions on project areas where 

there is a deficit of stands simultaneously meeting 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

508 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

larger landscape analysis shows there is a surplus. 

This table has been modified to contain only 

information pertinent to the Coconino NF. 

(Coconino NF forest plan, pp. 65-3 to 65-5).

minimum target and threshold habitat conditions unless 

the districtwide or larger landscape analysis shows there is 

a surplus. This table has been modified to contain only 

information pertinent to the Coconino NF.

Variable Mixed Conifer

All RU

Mixed Conifer

Other RU*

Pine-Oak Target and 

Threshold Habitat**

Restricted Area Percent 10% +15% Up to 10%

Stand Averages for:

Basal Area 170 150 110–150

18 inch+ trees/acre 20 20 20

Oak Basal Area NA NA 20

Percent total existing:

12–18 inches 10 10 15

18–24 inches 10 10 15

24+ inches 10 10 15

Attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns by 

incorporating natural variation, such as irregular tree 

spacing and various patch sizes, into management 

prescriptions (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Maintain all species of native trees in the landscape 

including early seral species (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus 

producing horizontal variation in stand structure 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Emphasize uneven-aged management systems. 

However, both even-aged and uneven-aged systems 

may be used where appropriate to provide variation 

in existing stand structure and species diversity. 

Existing stand conditions will determine which 

system is appropriate (Coconino NF forest plan, 

page 65-4). 

No Change

Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands to greater 

than 200 years. Silvicultural prescriptions should 

explicitly state when vegetative manipulation will 

cease until rotation age is reached (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Save all trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. In pineoak forests, retain existing large oaks and promote 

growth of additional large oaks (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 65-4). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 509

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

In pine-oak forests, retain existing large oaks and 

promote growth of additional large oaks (Coconino 

NF forest plan, page 65-4).

No Change

Encourage prescribed and prescribed natural fire to 

reduce hazardous fuel accumulation. Thinning from 

below may be desirable or necessary before burning 

to reduce ladder fuels and the risk of crown fire 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-4). 

No Change

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat 

components:

• Snags 18 inches in diameter and larger

• Down logs over 12 inches midpoint 

diameter

• Hardwoods for retention, recruitment, and 

replacement of large hardwoods

No Change 

Riparian Areas – No Change

Domestic Livestock Grazing – No Change

Old-Growth – No Change

Other Forest and Woodland Types – No Change

Guidelines for Specific Recovery Units – No Change

Monitoring Guidelines

Monitoring and evaluation should be collaboratively 

planned and coordinated with involvement from 

each national forest, USFWS Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Regional Office, USFS 

Regional Office, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

recovery team, and recovery unit working groups.

See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

Population monitoring should be a collaborative 

effort with participation of all appropriate resource 

agencies. (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-6)

Habitat monitoring of gross habitat changes should 

be a collaborative effort of all appropriate resource 

agencies. (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-6)

Habitat monitoring of treatment effects (pre- and 

post-treatment) should be done by the agency 

conducting the treatment. (Coconino NF forest plan, 

page 65-6)

Prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report 

covering all levels of monitoring done in the 

previous year. The annual report should be 

forwarded to the Regional Forester with copies 

provided to the recovery unit working groups, 

USFWS Ecological Services field offices, and the 

USFWS Regional Office (Coconino NF forest plan, 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

510 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard 

or Guideline Language*

page 65-6).

Rangewide: Track gross changes in acres of owl 

habitat resulting from natural and human caused 

disturbances. Acreage changes in vegetation 

composition, structure, and density should be 

tracked, evaluated, and reported. Remote sensing 

techniques should provide an adequate level of 

accuracy (Coconino NF forest plan, page 65-6). 

In protected and restricted areas where silvicultural 

or fire abatement treatments are planned, monitor 

treated stands pre- and post-treatment to determine 

changes and

trajectories in fuel levels; snag basal areas; live tree 

basal areas; volume of down logs over 12 inches in 

diameter; and basal area of hardwood trees over 10 

inches in diameter at the root crown (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 65-6). 

Upper Gila Mountain, Basin and Range East, and 

Basin and Range West Recovery Units: Assist the 

recovery team and recovery unit working groups to 

establish sampling units consisting of 19 to 39 

square mile quadrats randomly allocated to habitat 

strata. Quadrats should be defined based on 

ecological boundaries such as ridge lines and 

watersheds. Quadrat boundaries should not traverse 

owl territories. Twenty percent of the quadrats will 

be replaced each year at random.

Using the sample quadrats, monitor the number of 

territorial individuals and pairs per quadrat; 

reproduction; apparent survival; recruitment; and age

structure. Track population density both per quadrat 

and habitat stratum.

See “Standards” for Monitoring Direction

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 511

Figure 58. Alternative C amendment 1 proposed activities in MSO PACs in relation to no 

treatment areas (Coconino NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

512 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 59. Alternative C amendment 1 prescribed fire within and outside of MSO core 

areas
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 513

Figure 60. Alternative C amendment 1 landscape target and threshold analysis
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

514 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 61. Alternative C amendment 1 general locations of MSO target and threshold 

habitat managed from 110 to 150 basal area (Coconino NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 515

Figure 62. Alternative C amendment 1 locations of MSO target and threshold treatments

Consistency with the MSO Recovery Plan

Mechanical treatment up to 18-inch d.b.h. in select MSO PACs is consistent with the 1995 

MSO recovery plan which is incorporated into the forest plan. The plan describes “large trees” as 

either greater than 18-inch d.b.h. (page 92) or greater than 19 inches (page 65) (USDI 1995). 

Treatments are also consistent with the definition of large trees in the 2012 revised MSO recovery 

plan. 

Use of prescribed fire within MSO PAC core areas: By definition, PAC habitat and especially 

core areas have high fuel loading and the uncharacteristic accumulation of ground fuels puts them 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

516 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

at further risk. Reducing fuels to reduce the risk of high-severity fire in these important habitats 

would contribute toward conservation of this threatened species. A forest plan variance (allowing 

low intensity prescribed burning within the 100-acre core area) would eliminate the need for hand 

line and/or dozer line construction, allow for the maximum number of surrounding PAC acres to 

be treated with prescribed fire, and would potentially minimize up to 560 acres of ground 

disturbance to PAC habitat.

The 1995 recovery plan (USDI 1995) states “Two primary reasons were cited for the listing: 

historical alteration of its habitat as the result of timber management practices, specifically the 

use of even-aged silviculture...” and “The danger of catastrophic wildfire...” While the recovery 

plan is clear that the primary existing threat is high-severity wildland fire, the recovery plan also 

states that “[r]etaining large trees is desirable because they are impossible to replace quickly and 

because they are common features of nesting and roosting habitats for the owl.” The recovery 

plan recognizes that “ecosystems are temporally dynamic [and] provisions are needed to ensure 

owl habitat in the long term.” The primary objective to be achieved by the recovery plan

guidelines is protection of the best available habitat for the MSO, while maintaining sufficient 

flexibility for land managers to abate high fire risks and to improve habitat conditions for the owl 

and its prey (page 89). The potential for using silviculture as a tool for meeting objectives such as 

maintaining and developing MSO habitat and enhancing various ecological factors is specifically 

identified in the recovery plan. 

The original recovery plan recommends that recovery efforts concentrate on the recovery units 

with the highest owl populations and where significant threats exist. The project is located within 

the Upper Gila Mountain Recovery Unit (UGM RU). The UGM RU contains the largest known 

number of MSOs with approximately 55 percent of known spotted owl territories. The major land 

use within this recovery unit has been timber harvest.

The (1995) recovery plan describes a change in the size class distribution of trees that occurred on 

commercial forest lands in Arizona and New Mexico between the 1960s and 1980s. The density 

of large trees (greater than 19-inch d.b.h.) decreased by 20 percent and sapling-sized trees (1- to 

4.9-inch d.b.h.) decreased in both absolute density and in relative contribution to the size class 

distribution. Trees 5- to 12.9-inch d.b.h. increased in density by 40 percent and in relative 

proportion of the size class distribution, and trees 13- to 19-inch d.b.h. increased in density but 

not in the relative proportion of the tree distribution. The decrease in large trees was described as 

“an alarming negative trend with respect to a very critical component of spotted owl habitat” 

(page 68) given that “the basis to maintain owl populations is to ensure that adequate habitat 

quality and quantity will be sustained through time.” In order to achieve this, the recovery plan

advocates using coarse and fine filters for ecosystem management.

Coarse filters should be used “to maintain the natural array of conditions that exist with the biotic 

and physical limits of the landscape” while fine filters may be used “to provide specialized 

habitats or habitat elements within that overall landscape.” They recommend “innovative 

applications of uneven-aged management” for developing and maintaining important but difficult 

to replace spotted owl habitat elements, including large pine and oak trees, and key habitat 

components such as trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h. and prey habitat. The amendment allows for 

using silvicultural and prescribed fire treatments in select PACs at risk of losing key MSO habitat 

elements through declining forest health. Treatment objectives are to develop and maintain 

adequate MSO habitat quality and quantity through time. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 517

The need to evolve from managing solely for firewood collection and fire risk abatement is 

reflected in the revised recovery plan for the MSO. The revised recovery plan states 

“Management is the most conservatively oriented toward owl management within PACs, but is by 

no means ‘hands off.’ The draft recognizes situations exist where management is needed to 

sustain or enhance desired future conditions for the owl...” It goes on to state “Mechanical 

treatments to achieve these objectives require a landscape analysis to determine where the needs 

are greatest” which is the process we are currently undergoing (USDI 2012).

Managing up to 10 percent restricted habitat as target or threshold habitat and 110 to 150 

Basal Area:

Target and Threshold Habitat: This amendment would allow for managing up to10 percent 

of the designated restricted habitat as nest and roost habitat. MSO habitat is generally more 

abundant, more contiguous, and of higher quality on the Coconino NF than the Kaibab NF. 

This conclusion is based on forest data queries, years of on-the-ground experience of 

participants in the development of the restricted layer, and on presumed choices made by the 

owls themselves. MSOs are abundant and concentrated in pine-oak habitat on the Coconino 

NF. In contrast, there is only a single MSO detection dating from 1994 in pine-oak habitat on 

the Kaibab NF.

The MSO recovery plan describes past planning as operating at “limited spatial scale[s]” 

which precludes a more meaningful review of MSO habitat at ecological scales (USDI 1995). 

The scale of the 4FRI and the fact it transcends administrative boundaries allows managers to 

conduct a true landscape-scale analysis. Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI 

restricted habitat would be managed as current or future target or threshold habitat. On the 

Coconino NF portion of the project, where the most owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 

13 percent (6,465 acres) of the restricted layer would be designated as target or threshold 

habitat. The Kaibab NF portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 percent (2,247 

acres) of the restricted layer designated as target or threshold habitat. By creating more future 

nesting and roosting habitat on the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more 

contiguous for dispersing MSOs, and occur in areas supporting higher densities of MSOs 

than if 10 percent of the restricted layer was designated by individual administrative 

boundaries. 

This amendment meets the intent of the original (1995) and revised (2012) recovery plan by 

reducing the potential for creating excessively fragmented habitat and managing stands based 

on their capability to attain desired stand conditions. This amendment does not affect habitat 

designated in previous projects or in mixed-conifer habitat. 

Basal Area of 110 to 150: Use of the best science is fundamental to achieving or moving 

toward a restored landscape. The 1995 recovery plan (USDI 1995) puts an emphasis on “the 

danger of catastrophic wildfire” and additionally states that “[r]etaining large trees is 

desirable because they are impossible to replace quickly and because they are common 

features of nesting and roosting habitats for the owl.”

Managing for forest densities below 150 BA would better achieve both objectives. 

Management of forested ecosystems also needs to address forest health problems, return 

forested ecosystems to conditions within their natural range of variation, and work toward 

sustainable and resilient ecosystems (USDI 1995). Managing for conditions below 150 BA 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

518 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

immediately after treatment would better meet each of the respective objectives. Finally, the 

recovery plan recommends managers concentrate efforts on the recovery units with the 

highest owl populations and where significant threats exist, both of which fit the Upper Gila 

Mountain Recovery Unit where the 4FRI takes place. Managing for 110 to 150 basal area is 

consistent with the recommendations found in the revised MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012). 

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management and the actions. How actions could potentially affect timing, location 

and size, relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was 

evaluated.

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place and amended several times since 

1987, and revision efforts are underway. The forest plan incorporated direction (via an 

amendment) from the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s 1996 “Amendment of Forest Plans 

Record of Decision” (USDA 1996). ). The actions allowed via the amendment are consistent with 

existing forest plan direction in that it improves nesting and rooting habitat, reduces the risk of 

loss from fire, and will comply with the site-specific treatment and monitoring requirements in 

the FWS biological opinion. Forest plan direction may be amended to incorporate the revised 

MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012) which recognizes that habitat restoration, in addition to the 

reduction of fire risk, is key to improving habitat quality. 

Location and Size: There are 168 MSO PACs (117,636 acres) occurring entirely on the Coconino 

NF. The amendment (including mechanical treatment up to 18 inch and prescribed fire in 56 core 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 519

areas) would affect 18 (11 percent) of all Coconino NF PACs. Prescribed burning within 56 core 

areas would potentially equal a minimum of about 5,600 acres of ground disturbance (100 acres 

per PAC) within 56 PACs. 

Changing the minimum basal area value in restricted habitat would only apply to target and 

threshold acres, or those restricted acres being managed for nesting/roosting habitat as defined in 

the forest plans. A maximum of about 6,321 acres of restricted target or threshold habitat, or 

approximately 8 percent of all MSO restricted habitat (76,091acres) would be affected by using a 

basal area range of 110 to 150 within the treatment area on both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment is consistent with forest plan 

goals for wildlife and fish of managing habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish 

species, and improving habitat for selected species (Coconino National Forest plan, replacement 

page 22-1). It is consistent with the goal to improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species of plants and animals, and other species as they become threatened or 

endangered (Coconino National Forest plan, replacement page 23). The amendment is consistent 

with goals and objectives by protecting conditions and structures used by MSOs where they exist 

and to set other stands on a trajectory to grow into replacement nest habitat or to provide 

conditions for foraging and dispersal (USDI 1995, 2012). 

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Mechanical thinning up to 18-inch d.b.h. in 18 

MSO PACs would affect between 1 and 3 percent of the forestwide MA acres (table 102). Using 

prescribed fire within 56 MSO PAC core areas (about 5,600 acres) would affect between 1 and 5 

percent of the forestwide MA acres. Managing 6,321 acres of restricted habitat to a range of 110 

to 150 BA would affect less than 1 percent to 3 percent of the forestwide MAs. The amendment 

intent is consistent with the management emphasis of providing for multiple uses that includes 

wildlife habitat and meeting MSO standards and guidelines which emphasize improving and 

maintaining the quality of the habitat (MA 3) and moving ponderosa pine toward desired forest 

structure, including northern goshawk and MSO habitats (MA 35). 

Table 102. Alternative C MSO amendment 1 management area acres

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Mechanical Treatment Up to 18-inch d.b.h.

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 

40 percent slopes

511,015 5,384 1 

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 1,782 3 

MA 4, 10, 5, 

9, 12, and 6

See chapter 1, table 14 307,011 187 <1

Prescribed Fire within 56 MSO PAC Core Areas

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 

40 percent slopes

511,015 3,800 1 

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 1,614 3 

MA 5 Aspen 3,450 186 5 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

520 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

110 to 150 Basal Area in MSO Restricted Habitat

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 

40 percent slopes

511,015 3,956 1 

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 1,926 3 

MA 37 and 

MA 38

Walnut Canyon and 

West 

20,566 to 

36,298

312 <1

Various 

MAs

Various 127

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with MMBF of 

sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing capacity 

(MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM).The amendment would not affect outputs or 

change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services. Due 

to the minimal acres affected, the amendment would not alter outputs on a forestwide basis or 

change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services. 

In comparison the forest’s total suitable timber lands (626,326 acres), the amendment would 

affect about 1 percent of those lands. For this reason, mechanical treatment within PACs and the 

minimal (6,465) acres treated in restricted habitat do not measurably increase or decrease timber 

outputs or firewood availability. There would be no measurable effect to outputs on a forestwide

basis or the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services from 

using prescribed fire in 56 core areas, managing restricted habitat up to 10 percent, managing 

restricted habitat for a basal area of 110 to 150, or deferring the final design of treatments and 

monitoring to the project’s biological opinion. The amendment would not affect decisions that 

have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted livestock use.

Amendment 2. Management of Canopy Cover and 

Ponderosa Pine with an Open Reference Condition 

Within Goshawk Habitat (Coconino NF)

Amendment 2 is a specific, one-time variance for the Coconino NF restoration project. Once the 

project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. The language 

proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendments would be authorized per 

direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

In the “Vegetation Management – Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas” 

and “Vegetation Management –Within Post-fledgling Family Areas” section of the forest plan, a 

site-specific, nonsignificant plan amendment would: (1) add the desired percentage of interspace 

within uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration, (2) add the interspace distance between tree 

groups, (3) add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, (4) allow 29,017 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 521

acres to be managed for an open reference condition which affects canopy cover guidelines for 

VSS 4 through VSS 6 groups and reserve trees, and (5) add a definition to the forest plan glossary 

for the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.

The forest plan directs projects to manage for uneven-aged stand conditions within goshawk 

habitat. Forested groups consist of an interspersion of six vegetation structural stages (VSS 1 to 

VSS 6). For the purposes of this amendment, the following definitions apply:

• Stands are defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, 

composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently 

uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Four classification characteristics are 

generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical site (soils, aspect, elevation, 

plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, and 

age (1-aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis (administrative 

requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 

Based upon Agency guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres. 

• Interspaces are defined as the open space between tree groups intended to be managed 

for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered 

single trees.

• Open reference condition is defined as forested ponderosa pine areas with mollicintegrade soils to be managed as a relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated 

in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix. 

Background

Canopy cover is defined as “the percentage of a fixed area covered by the crowns of plants 

delimited by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the spread of foliage” (Reynolds 

et al. 1992). Obtaining consistent results has been difficult; even the definition of the term is 

dependent on the method of measurement. To resolve this issue, the Forest Service used the 

Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) crown width model as the basis for developing stocking 

densities that would achieve desired canopy cover levels.

The forest plan directs projects to measure “vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape” (see Coconino National Forest plan, page 65-9). Whereas the forest plan clearly 

provides direction for meeting minimum canopy cover percentages in VSS 4 to 6, the plans lack 

explicit language for measuring canopy cover. Although the forest plan provides direction and 

desired conditions for the vegetation structural stages, the forest plan does not describe the 

relationship between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural openings across the landscape.

Nonforested areas (interspaces) occur between individual trees, tree clumps, and tree groups. 

These nonforested areas (interspaces) are not equivalent to VSS 1. Whereas VSS 1 may provide 

openings in the short term, this structural stage is expected to regenerate tree cover in the long 

term. Refer to the silviculture report and the implementation plan (appendix D) which provides 

minimum stocking guidelines that have been developed to assure canopy cover requirements are 

met. Figure 63 displays the general locations in alternative C where canopy cover would be 

affected by the amendment on both forests. Figure 64 displays the general locations in alternative 

C where acres would be managed for an open reference condition on both forests. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

522 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Approximately 198,136 acres (61 percent) of the forested areas (within the project area) have an 

open reference condition that corresponds to mollic-integrade soils. The desired condition is to 

have a portion of these acres (29,017 acres) managed as a relatively open forest with trees 

typically aggregated in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix (Woolsey 1911, Cooper 

1960, White 1985, Pearson 1950, Covington et a1.1997, Abella and Denton 2009). See the soils 

specialist report for detailed information. 

Current forest plan language and edited or added/new text is bolded in table 103. 

Table 103. Alternative C amendment 2 management of canopy cover and ponderosa pine 

with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Coconino NF)

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Landscapes Outside Goshawk PFAs

No similar direction in forest plan General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over time 

for uneven-aged stand conditions composed of 

heterogeneous mosaics of tree groups and single trees, with 

interspaces between tree groups. The size of tree groups, as 

well as sizes and shapes of interspaces, should be variable. 

Over time, the spatial location of the tree groups and 

interspaces may shift within the uneven-aged stand.

General: The distribution of vegetation 

structural stages for ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer and spruce-fir forests is 10% 

grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10% seedling-sapling 

(VSS 2), 20% young forest (VSS 3), 20% midaged forest (VSS 4), 20% mature forest (VSS 

5), 20% old forest (VSS 6). NOTE: The 

specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary + or – up to 

3% (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9). 

General: For the areas managed for tree crown development, 

the distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests is 10 percent

grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 

20 percent young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4), 20 percent mature forest (VSS 5), and 20 percent old 

forest (VSS 6). Note: the specified percentages are a guide, and 

actual percentages are expected to vary plus or minus up to 3

percent. 

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree 

age are a product of site quality in the 

ecosystem management area. Use site quality to 

guide in the distribution of VSS, tree density, 

and tree ages. Use site quality to identify and 

manage dispersal PFA and nest habitat at 2 - 

2.5 mile spacing across the landscape 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9).

No Change

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or 

larger in height, downed logs are 12 inches in 

diameter and at least 8 feet long, woody debris 

is 3 inches or larger on the forest floor, canopy 

cover is measured with vertical crown 

projection on average across the landscape 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-9).

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in height, 

downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 feet long, 

woody debris is 3 inches or larger on the forest floor, canopy 

cover as defined by vertical crown projection is evaluated 

within mid-aged to old forest vegetation structural stage 

groups (VSS 4, 5, and 6).

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation mosaic: 30 

to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand should be under 

ponderosa pine and deciduous tree crowns. Within areas 

managed for an open reference condition, 10 to 30 percent of 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 523

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

the uneven-aged stand should be under ponderosa pine and 

deciduous tree crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable based 

on local site and current conditions; the interspaces between 

groups may range from 20 to 200 feet, but generally between 

25 and 100 feet apart from drip line to adjacent drip line. 

This spacing of groups is not affected by single trees in the 

interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation 

structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high 

dispersion of vegetation structural stage diversity, and 

interspaces comprise each uneven-aged forest stand. 

Collectively these stands aggregate to uneven-aged forest 

landscapes, similar to natural conditions.

The order of preferred treatment for woody 

debris is: (1) prescribed burning, (2) lopping 

and scattering, (3) hand piling or machine 

grapple piling, (4) dozer piling (Coconino NF 

forest plan, p. 65-9).

No Change

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply 

only to mid-aged to old forest structural stages 

(VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to 

grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural 

stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) (Coconino 

NF forest plan, p. 65-9). 

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only to mid-aged 

to old forest structural stage groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) 

and not to grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural stage 

groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in interspaces, natural 

meadows, grasslands, or other areas not managed for forest 

cover.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60% and 2/3 40%, 

mature forest (VSS 5) should average 60+%, 

and old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%. 

Maximum opening size is 1 acre with a 

maximum width of 125 feet. Provide 2 groups 

of reserve trees per acre with 6 trees per group 

when opening size exceeds 0.5. Leave at least 3 

snags, 5 downed logs, and 10–15 tons of woody 

debris per acre (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-

9). 

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged 

forest (VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 

2/3 40+%, mature forest (VSS 5) should 

average 50+%, and old forest (VSS 6) should 

average 60+%. Maximum opening size is up to 

4 acres with a maximum width of up to 200 

feet. Retain 1 group of reserve trees per acre of 

3–5 trees per group for openings greater than 1 

acre in size. Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed 

logs, and 10–15 tons of woody debris per acre 

(Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

524 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged 

forest (VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature 

forest (VSS 5) should average 40+%, and old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 40+%. Opening 

size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width of 

up to 200 feet. One group of reserve trees, 3–5 

trees per group, will be left if the opening is 

greater than an acre in size. Leave at least 2 

snags per acre, 3 downed logs per acre, and 5–7 

tons of woody debris per acre (Coconino NF 

forest plan, p. 65-10).

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should 

average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 40+

percent. Opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width of 

up to 200 feet. One group of reserve trees, three to five trees per 

group, will be left if the created regeneration opening is 

greater than an acre in size. Leave at least two snags per acre, 

three downed logs per acre, and 5–7 tons of woody debris per 

acre.

In acres managed for an open reference condition, canopy 

cover guidelines for VSS 4 through VSS 6 groups do not 

apply. One group of reserve trees, with a minimum of one to 

two trees per group will be left if the interspace size is 

greater than an acre in size. Interspace size is up to 4 acres.

Leave at least two snags per acre, three downed logs per acre, 

and 5–7 tons of woody debris per acre

Woodland: manage for uneven age conditions 

to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities 

(overstory and understory), age classes, and 

species composition well distributed across the 

landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and 

down woody debris (Coconino NF forest plan, 

p. 65-10). 

No Change

Vegetation Management – Within Post-fledgling Family Areas

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable 

forest environment for the post-fledging family 

needs of goshawks. The principle difference 

between within the post-fledging family area 

and outside the post-fledging family area is the 

higher canopy cover within the post-fledging 

family area and smaller opening size within the 

post-fledging family area. Vegetative Structural 

Stage distribution and structural conditions are 

the same within and outside the post-fledging 

family area (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-

10). 

No Change

No similar direction in forest plan Canopy cover is evaluated at the group level within midaged to old forest structural stages groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, 

and VSS 6) and not within grass/forb/shrub to young forest 

structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in 

interspaces, natural meadows and grasslands, or other areas 

not managed for forest conditions.

Spruce-fir: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 60+% and for mature 

(VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should average 

70+% (Coconino NF forest plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy Cover for mid-aged 

(VSS 4) to old forest (VSS 6) should average 

60+%.

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 525

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged 

forest (VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 

2/3 50+%. Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 

6) should average 50+% (Coconino NF forest 

plan, p. 65-10).

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation mosaic: 30 

to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand should be under 

ponderosa pine and deciduous tree crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable based 

on local site and current conditions; the interspaces between 

groups may range from 20 to 200 feet, but generally between 

25 and 100 feet apart from drip line to adjacent drip line. 

This spacing of groups is not affected by single trees in the 

interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation 

structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high 

dispersion of VSS structural stage diversity, and interspaces 

comprise each uneven-aged forest stand. Collectively these 

stands aggregate to uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar 

to natural conditions.

Glossary

No corresponding forest plan language Interspaces: The open space between tree groups intended 

to be managed for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the 

long term. Interspaces may include scattered single trees.

No corresponding forest plan language Open reference condition: Forested ponderosa pine areas 

with mollic-integrade soils to be managed as a relatively 

open forest with trees typically aggregated in small groups 

within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

No corresponding forest plan language Stands: Contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in 

forest type, composition, structure, and age class 

distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform 

conditions to be a distinguishable unit.

* Edited and new/added text is bolded.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

526 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 63. Alternative C general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 527

Figure 64. Alternative C amendment 2 general locations of savanna and grassland 

restoration treatments (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

528 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management and the actions. How actions could potentially affect timing, location 

and size, relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was 

evaluated. 

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1987 and plan 

revision efforts are underway.

Location and Size: Suitable goshawk habitat on the Coconino NF encompasses about 791,897 

acres (Green 2011, draft unpublished data). Approximately 399,633 acres of goshawk habitat is 

within the 4FRI project area.

• The canopy cover portion of the amendment would affect 139,161 acres (18 percent) of 

all goshawk habitat on the Coconino NF and about 35 percent of goshawk habitat within 

the project area. For this reason, location (confined to the ponderosa pine cover type) 

and size was determined to be non-significant.

• Managing 29,017 acres of ponderosa pine for an open reference condition would affect 

approximately 4 percent of all suitable goshawk habitats on the forest and about 8 

percent of goshawk habitat within the project area.

For these reasons, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant. The amendment would 

facilitate moving over 139,000 acres toward the desired forest structure (groups and clumps with 

herbaceous openings) that maximizes prey base species habitat and allows for the reintroduction 

of fire into the ecosystem; and moves over 29,000 acres toward historic reference conditions.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: Alternative C would meet goshawk forest plan 

canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to 6 in all acres except the 29,054 acres managed for an 

open reference condition. In all acres but the open reference condition acres, actions would move 

toward the desired VSS size class distribution.

The amendment is consistent with forest goals for wildlife and fish of managing habitat to 

maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species and improve habitat for selected species 

(Coconino National Forest plan, replacement page 22-1). It is consistent with the goal to improve 

habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and other 

species as they become threatened or endangered (Coconino National Forest plan, replacement 

page 23). 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 529

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Table 104 displays the acres associated with 

Coconino NF management areas (MAs).

Canopy Cover: The acres of forestwide MAs affected by the canopy cover portion of the 

amendment (139,161 acres total) would range from 3 percent (MA 4) to 35 percent (MA 38). 

The amendment is specific to this project and would not impose definition and clarification 

requirements on the future management of canopy cover within goshawk habitat. 

Open Reference Condition: The acres of forestwide MAs affected by the open reference 

condition portion of the amendment (29,054 acres total) would range from 1 percent (MA 10) 

to 9 percent (MA 35). The amendment is consistent with the management emphasis of 

providing for multiple uses that includes wildlife habitat (MA 3) and moving ponderosa pine 

toward desired forest structure, including northern goshawk habitats (MA 35). The 

amendment is specific to this project and would not impose requirements on future 

management of the 29,017 acres of goshawk non-PFA; however, forest plan revision 

decisions may.

Table 104. Alternative C Amendment 2 MA Acres

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Canopy Cover

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 40 

percent slopes

511,015 92,204 18

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 14,287 23

MA 38 West 36,298 12,844 35

MA 6 Unproductive timber 

lands

67,146 4,929 7 

MA 37 Walnut Canyon 20,566 4,536 22

MA 20 Highway 180 corridor 7,608 2,087 27

MA 4 Ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer >40%

46,382 1,612 3 

MA 36 Schultz 21,289 1,815 9 

*MA 28, 4, 

9, 5, 8, 10, 

7, 34, 12, 

15, 14

See chapter 1, table 14 511,301 4,847 <1

Open Reference Condition

MA 3 Ponderosa pine below 40 

percent slopes

511,015 19,010 4 

MA 35 Lake Mary watershed 62,536 5,840 9 

MA 10 Transition grassland 160,494 1,288 1 

MA 38 West 36,298 1,073 3 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

530 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

MA MA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

**MA 6, 

20, 4, 37, 9, 

36, 7, 12, 

34, 28, 5

See chapter 1, table 14 221,928 1,806 <1

*All MA acres ranging from 1 to 1,215 were aggregated into the various categories.

**All MA acres ranging from 3 to 655 were aggregated into the various categories. 

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with MMBF of 

sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing capacity 

(MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM).The amendment would not affect outputs or 

change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services.

The canopy cover portion of the amendment provides clarification and disclosure of methods for 

meeting forest plan requirements. It has no relationship to outputs or to the relationship between 

the level of goods (timber, firewood) and services and would not result in a change in land 

productivity or timber suitability classification.

Managing a portion of the landscape for an open reference condition affects about 29,017 acres of 

an estimated 626,326 acres of suitable timber lands. The management strategy on these acres 

would result in an extended rotation period between treatments beyond what was considered in 

developing the long-term sustained yield output in the forest plan. In the short term (10-year 

period), the amendment affects about 5 percent of the suitable land base. However, due to the 

minimal acres affected, the amendment would not measurably alter outputs in the foreseeable 

future on a forestwide basis; or change the long-term relationship between levels of goods 

(timber, firewood) and services. There would be no change in land productivity; therefore, it 

would not affect timber suitability classification.

Whether the 29,017 acres would continue to be managed as suitable timber in the long term will 

be evaluated during the forest plan revision process. No portion of the amendment would affect 

decisions that have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted 

livestock use.

Amendment 3. Effect Determination for Cultural Resources

Amendment 3 is a specific, one-time variance for the Coconino NF restoration project. Once the 

project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. The language 

proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendments would be authorized per 

direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

The amendment deletes the standard that addresses achieving a “no effect” determination and 

adds the words “or no adverse effect” to the remaining standard. Management strives to achieve a 

“no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 531

Background

The Coconino NF forest plan as written has some conflicting direction regarding managing 

significant or potentially significant sites. One standard (which would be amended for this 

project) directs management to strive to achieve a “no effect” determination. A second standard 

(which would be deleted for this project) directs management to achieve a “no effect” 

determination in consultation with SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800). An amendment is proposed 

to recognize that there could be effects that are not adverse, and that there could be adverse 

effects that may or may not be fully mitigated. Table 105 displays current and proposed forest 

plan language. New or edited text is displayed in bold text.

Table 105. Alternative C amendment 3 effect determination for cultural resources 

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New 

Standards and 

Guidelines Language*

Cultural Resources

Consult with Native Americans when projects and activities are planned in sites or 

areas of known religious or cultural importance (Coconino NF forest plan, page 52).

No Change 

Make boughs and herbaceous plant parts used for Native American religious and 

ceremonial purposes available under conditions and procedures that minimize 

restrictions, consistent with laws, regulations, and agreements with tribes. The 

written authorization to the Hopi Tribe for gathering without specific individual 

permits is an example. This authorization does not include such items as firewood 

removed from the forest or Kiva logs, which do require a permit (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 52).

No Change

The forest complies with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 

decisions involving interactions between cultural and other resources. Cultural 

resources are managed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Plan 

(SHPO). Until evaluated, the minimal level of management for all sites is avoidance 

and protection (Coconino NF forest plan, page 52).

No change

Specific standards and guidelines derived from the settlement agreement for the 

Save the Jemez lawsuit are subject to adjustment, should that agreement be 

modified. In that event an amendment to the forest plan will be issued (Coconino 

NF forest plan, page 52).

No Change

Project undertakings are inventoried for cultural resources and areas of Native 

American religious use. Inventory intensity complies with regional policy, and the 

settlement agreement for the Save The Jemez Lawsuit, and is determined in 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Generally, 

inventory standards are:

One hundred percent survey of all projects causing complete surface disturbance;

When less than 100 percent survey is deemed appropriate, the specific sample 

fraction surveyed is determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer and is generally greater than 10 percent. Factors determining when sampling 

is appropriate include projects with dispersed or minimal impacts, low expected 

archaeological site density, ground cover, and types of archaeological sites present 

in the area;

Consultation with appropriate Native American groups;

Consultation with the SHPO, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), before project implementation (Coconino NF forest plan, 

page 52-1). 

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

532 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New 

Standards and 

Guidelines Language*

Significant, or potentially significant, inventoried sites are managed to achieve a 

“No Effect” determination, in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800) 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 53).

Standard would be 

removed

Monitoring during and after project implementation is done to document site 

protection and condition (Coconino NF forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Management strives to achieve a “No Effect” determination (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 53).

Management strives to 

achieve a “no effect” or 

“no adverse effect” 

determination

When sample surveys, rather than 100 percent survey coverage, are done for project 

clearances, survey locations and sample intensity are based on areas of greatest 

project impact, likely locations for cultural resource sites based on archaeological 

experience, land management planning, dispersion of sample coverage, certain 

topographic features specified in the Save the Jemez lawsuit settlement agreement, 

and likely areas based on the Forest site density predictions (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 53).

No Change

Identified sites are evaluated for their National Register eligibility when they are 

severely damaged, when they will be impacted by an undertaking, or information 

about the uniqueness, commonness, and characteristics of their site class are 

sufficiently known to make an informed decision. Sites for which determinations of 

eligibility have not been made are managed as if they are eligible, unless 

consultation with the SHPO indicates otherwise (Coconino NF forest plan, page 

53).

No Change

For each full-time professional cultural resource specialist employed by the forest, 

at least two site nominations, one archaeological district nomination, or one 

thematic or multiple resource nomination will be made each year to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Or, alternatively, the forest will coordinate with other 

forests to prepare a joint district, thematic, or multiple resource nomination 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Inventoried sites allocated to management categories, and/or eligible or potentially 

eligible for the NRHP or potentially eligible for the NRHP are systematically 

revisited by regularly scheduled patrols, and by cultural resources specialists to 

assess natural deterioration, vandalism, or pilfering. Inspections are made at least 

biannually of properties that have been listed in or nominated to the National 

Register. Sites most susceptible to natural deterioration and/or human disturbance 

are monitored frequently. Rapid natural deterioration, or susceptibility to such, 

requires stabilization, restoration, and/or data recovery. Vandalism or pilfering 

requires protective measures such as signing, remote sensing, increased patrolling, 

investigations, stabilization, restoration, and/or data recovery. Specific sites or areas 

may be closed to off-road driving and withdrawn from mineral entry. Law 

enforcement is planned and implemented to minimize resource damage and user 

conflicts. Signing is appropriate to inform and educate the public and minimize 

direct law enforcement activity. Aggressively pursue violations (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 53).

No Change

Continue to interpret cultural resources through lectures, tours, papers, reports, 

publications, brochures, displays, films, trails, signs, and other opportunities. 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 533

Current Coconino NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New 

Standards and 

Guidelines Language*

Develop a program to complete 100 percent coverage of the Forest’s cultural 

resource inventory by 2000 (Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change

The first priorities for cultural resources protection, enhancement, and interpretation 

are those sites that are easily accessible, have major interpretive potential, or are in 

major need of repair. Priority sites for signing are the C. Hart Merriam Base Camp, 

Honanki Cliff Dwellings, Elden Pueblo, Sacred Mountain, Palatki Cliff Dwellings, 

and Clear Creek Ruins. Priority sites for repair and stabilization are Honanki Cliff 

Dwellings, Palatki Cliff Dwellings, Sacred Mountain, Clear Creek Cliff Dwelling, 

and General Springs Cabin. Priority sites for developing interpretive brochures are 

Elden Pueblo, Sacred Mountain, Red Tank Draw Petroglyphs, Honanki Cliff 

Dwellings, Palatki Cliff Dwellings, and Clear Creek Ruins. Priorities are to:

Survey to clear projects.

Survey to fill in gaps in existing inventory coverage.

Survey areas of known high site densities.

Survey areas that would do the most to answer current archaeological questions 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Computerize cultural resource site information by 1990 (Coconino NF forest plan, 

page 54).

No Change

Maintain a form for tracking compliance of each undertaking with the requirements 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Stabilize or repair damaged National Register sites or other sites funded by regional 

priority (Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Continue to develop the Elden Pueblo Interpretive Site and the cooperative 

education program with the Museum of Northern Arizona (Coconino NF forest 

plan, page 54).

No Change

Encourage universities to conduct summer field schools to assist in cultural resource 

survey and excavation work and to provide the forest with scientific knowledge 

(Coconino NF forest plan, page 54).

No Change

Periodically focus media attention on Elden Pueblo and/or other sites to educate the 

public and further volunteer interest in resource management. Work with 

community organizations, businesses, and other agencies to promote Arizona 

Archaeology Week. Feature significant finds and significant damage in the media to 

increase public awareness of benefits and problems (Coconino NF forest plan, page 

54).

No Change

* Edited and new/added text is bolded. 

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

534 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

The proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because multiple-use goals and 

objectives for long term land and resource management and its actions would not be altered. How 

the amendment could potentially affect timing, location and size, relationship to forest goals, 

objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was evaluated.

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1987, and plan 

revision efforts are underway.

Location and Size: The amendment is specific to the 593,211 acres of proposed treatments in this 

project. This affects about 33 percent of the Coconino NF which is about 1,821,495 acres in size. 

This would not have an important effect on the entire land management plan or a large portion of 

the planning area. For this reason, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment would not affect attainment of 

forest goals and objectives for cultural resources. Cultural resource sites would be located and 

protected from project activities according to direction in FSM 2360 and 2430 (Coconino NF 

forest plan, page 50) and the requirements of 36 CFR 800 including 36 CFR 800.5 which 

provides direction for assessing adverse effects and proposing a finding of no adverse effect. 

Consultation with AZ SHPO would occur as required and regulation 36 CFR 800 would be 

followed and met.

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: The amendment would apply to all 23 

management areas (MAs) as described in the Coconino National Forest plan (pages 46 to 206-

113) and in chapter 1 of the DEIS. The amendment would not affect the management of the MAs. 

All cultural resources are currently managed to minimize impacts and to achieve a “no effect” or 

“no adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in consultation with AZ SHPO, the council, 

and other consulting parties. 

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with MMBF of 

sawtimber sales and products (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), MMBF of firewood sold and free use (provide access to firewood), grazing capacity 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 535

(MAUM), and permitted livestock use (MAUM).The amendment would not affect outputs or 

change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) and services. 

The amendment would not affect outputs or change the long-term relationship between levels of 

goods (timber, firewood) and services. All cultural resources are managed to minimize impacts 

and to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in 

consultation with AZ SHPO, the council, and other consulting parties regardless of forest plan 

desired outputs.

Alternative C – Kaibab National Forest Site-Specific 

Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Three site-specific, nonsignificant forest plan amendments are proposed for alternative C. The 

potential impacts of two related planning efforts was evaluated.

A revised MSO recovery plan, issued by the FWS was finalized in December of 2012 (USDI 

2012). At some point in time, the Kaibab NF may amend its current forest plan to be consistent 

with this recovery plan. For this analysis, a forest plan amendment would be needed to utilize the 

2012 recovery plan direction as it differs from what is currently included in the Kaibab NF forest 

plan. 

Currently, the Kaibab NF is revising its forest plan (USDA 2012). A revised forest plan may 

affect the need for amendments 1 through 3 in the following ways:

Amendment 1: The current Kaibab NF forest plan has canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 

to VSS 6, has requirements for managing goshawk habitat for a balance of VSS,, and 

requirements for managing reserve trees in management created openings (greater than 1 acre 

in ponderosa pine in goshawk foraging areas and PFAs) is presented differently in the draft 

forest plan, as currently written (USDA 2012, page 14 to page 18). Amendment 1 would be in 

alignment with the draft forest plan (as currently written) as it: (1) provides for managing 

crowns of trees within the mid-aged to old groups as interlocking or nearly interlocking 

(USDA 2012 page 15); (2) manages forest conditions in some areas (e.g., goshawk PFAs, 

MSO protected areas, drainages, and steep north-facing slopes) with 10 to 20 percent higher 

basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups (USDA 2012, Page 16); and (3) manages for known 

and replacement nest areas (USDA 2012, page 45). 

The draft forest plans allow for project specific plan amendments. The portion of the 

amendment that allows deviation from maintaining three to five reserve trees per acre and 

having openings up to 90 percent for lands managed for an open reference condition would 

be consistent with what is allowed at the project level. The desired condition in ponderosa 

pine at the landscape scale is a ponderosa pine forest vegetation community with a mosaic of 

forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. The forest is 

generally uneven-aged and open. Groups of old trees are mixed with groups of younger trees. 

Occasional areas of even-aged structure are present. Denser tree conditions exist in some 

locations such as north-facing slopes, canyons, and drainage bottoms (USDA 2012, page 16). 

The terms “interspaces,” “open reference condition,” and “stands” do not appear in the draft 

forest plan (as currently written). The amendment would provide additional site-specific 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

536 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

direction and definitions that apply to landscape restoration that are not precluded by the draft 

forest plan.

Amendment 2 would allow for mechanically treating and using prescribed fire in the 

proposed Garland Prairie RNA. The amendment would no longer be needed once the new 

forest plan is put in place. The formerly proposed RNA would be managed as a grassland 

management area (MA). The restoration project would be consistent with the desired 

conditions for this MA (as currently written). 

Amendment 3: The amendment would be in alignment with the draft forest plan (as 

currently written) in that it defers management of MSOs to direction in the MSO recovery 

plan. The revised (2012) MSO recovery plan does not require a specific method for habitat 

monitoring, does not require treatments in increments, and the proposed basal area in 

nest/roost habitat is referenced in the 2012 revised plan. In the recovery plan, project 

monitoring is deferred to the management agency. For this project, monitoring and the final 

design of treatments (addressing incremental treatment) would be determined in consultation 

with the FWS.

Although restricted habitat is referred to as “recovery habitat” and “nest/roost habitats” in the 

2012 revised plan (USDI 2012, pp. 3, 4), the project’s desired conditions for nesting and 

roosting habitat is consistent with the revised recovery plan. The revised plan still 

recommends that a percentage (10 to 25 percent) of recovery habitat be managed as 

nesting/roosting (USDI 2012, page VIII). Designating habitat in the project with the best 

potential would move toward desired percentages in recovery habitat. Amendment 3 would 

provide additional site-specific requirements at the project scale that would not be precluded 

by the revised forest plan or the new recovery plan (USDI 2012). 

Amendment 1. Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine 

With an Open Reference Condition Within Goshawk Habitat (Kaibab NF)

Amendment 1 is a specific, one-time variance for the Kaibab NF portion of the restoration 

project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. 

The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendments would be 

authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

In the “Vegetation Management – Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas” 

and “Vegetation Management –Within Post-fledgling Family Areas” section of the forest plan, a 

nonsignificant plan amendment would: (1) add the desired percentage of interspace within 

uneven-aged stands to facilitate restoration, (2) add the interspace distance between tree groups, 

(3) add language clarifying where canopy cover is and is not measured, (4) allow 27,675 acres to 

be managed for an open reference condition (which affects canopy cover guidelines for VSS 4 

through VSS 6 groups and reserve trees), and (5) add a definition to the forest plan glossary for 

the terms interspaces, open reference condition, and stands.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 537

The Kaibab National Forest plan directs projects to manage for uneven-aged stand conditions 

within goshawk habitat. Forested groups consist of an interspersion of six vegetation structural 

stages (VSS 1 to VSS 6). For the purposes of this amendment, the following definitions apply:

• Stands are defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type, 

composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently 

uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Four classification characteristics are 

generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical site (soils, aspect, elevation, 

plant community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, and 

age (1-aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis (administrative 

requirements and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). 

Based upon agency guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres. 

• Interspaces are defined as the open space between tree groups intended to be managed 

for grass/forb/shrub vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered 

single trees.

• Open reference condition is defined as forested ponderosa pine areas with mollicintegrade soils to be managed as a relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated 

in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

Background

Canopy cover is defined as “the percentage of a fixed area covered by the crowns of plants 

delimited by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the spread of foliage” (Reynolds 

et al. 1992). Obtaining consistent results has been difficult; even the definition of the term is 

dependent on the method of measurement. To resolve this issue, the Forest Service used the 

Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) crown width model as the basis for developing stocking 

densities that would achieve desired canopy cover levels.

The forest plan directs projects to measure “vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape” (see Kaibab NF forest plan, page 29). Whereas the forest plan clearly provides 

direction for meeting minimum canopy cover percentages in VSS 4 to 6, the plans lack explicit 

language for measuring canopy cover. Although the forest plan provides direction and desired 

conditions for the vegetation structural stages, the forest plan does not describe the relationship 

between nonforested areas (interspace) and natural openings across the landscape.

Nonforested areas (interspaces) occur between individual trees, tree clumps, and tree groups. 

These nonforested areas (interspaces) are not equivalent to VSS 1. Whereas VSS 1 may provide 

openings in the short term, this structural stage is expected to regenerate tree cover in the long 

term. Refer to the silviculture report and the implementation plan (appendix D) which provides 

minimum stocking guidelines that have been developed to assure canopy cover requirements are 

met.

Approximately 198,136 acres (61 percent) of the forested areas (within the project area) have an 

open reference condition that corresponds to mollic-integrade soils. The desired condition is to 

have a portion of these acres (27,675 acres) managed as a relatively open forest with trees 

typically aggregated in small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix (Woolsey 1911, Cooper 

1960, White 1985, Pearson 1950, Covington et a1. 1997, Abella and Denton 2009). See the soils 

specialist report for detailed information. Figure 65 displays the general locations of areas subject 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

538 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

to canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. Figure 66

displays the general locations that would be managed for an open reference condition and 

grassland restoration. Edited or added/new text is bolded in the “Proposed New Guideline 

Language” column in table 106. 

Table 106. Alternative C amendment 1 – management of canopy cover and ponderosa pine 

with an open reference condition in goshawk habitat (Kaibab NF)

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas

No corresponding forest plan direction (see Kaibab 

NF forest plan, p. 29).

General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over 

time for uneven-aged stand conditions composed of 

heterogeneous mosaics of tree groups and single trees, 

with interspaces between tree groups. The size of tree 

groups, as well as sizes and shapes of interspaces, 

should be variable. Over time, the spatial location of the 

tree groups and interspaces may shift within the 

uneven-aged stand.

General: The distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and sprucefir forests is 10% grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10% 

seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20% young forest (VSS 

3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20% mature forest 

(VSS 5), 20% old forest (VSS 6). NOTE: The 

specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary + or – up to 3% 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29). 

General: For the areas managed for tree crown 

development, the distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir 

forests is 10 percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent

seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent young forest (VSS 3), 

20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature 

forest (VSS 5), and 20 percent old forest (VSS 6). Note: the 

specified percentages are a guide and actual percentages 

are expected to vary plus or minus up to 3 percent. 

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree age 

are a product of site quality in the ecosystem 

management area. Use site quality to guide in the 

distribution of VSS, tree density and tree ages. Use 

site quality to identify and manage dispersal PFA 

and nest habitat at 2 to 2.5 mile spacing across the 

landscape (Kaibab NF forest plan, p.29).

No Change

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in 

height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at 

least 8 feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger 

on the forest floor, canopy cover is measured with 

vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

Snags are 18" or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in 

height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 

feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger on the forest 

floor, canopy cover as defined by vertical crown 

projection is evaluated within mid-aged to old forest 

vegetation structural stage groups (VSS 4, 5, and 6).

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation 

mosaic: 30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns. Within areas managed for an open reference 

condition, 10 to 30 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 539

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the 

interspaces between groups may range from 20 to 200 

feet, but generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from 

drip line to adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups is 

not affected by single trees in the interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one 

vegetation structure stage. The spatial arrangement of 

trees, high dispersion of vegetation structural stage 

diversity, and interspaces comprise each uneven-aged 

forest stand. Collectively these stands aggregate to 

uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar to natural 

conditions.

The order of preferred treatment for woody debris is: 

(1) prescribed burning, (2) lopping and scattering, 

(3) hand piling or machine grapple piling, (4) dozer 

piling (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

No Change

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only 

to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and 

VSS 3) (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 29).

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only to midaged to old forest structural stage groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, 

and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to young forest 

structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in 

interspaces, natural meadows, grasslands, or other 

areas not managed for forest cover.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 1/3 60% and 2/3 40%, mature 

forest (VSS 5) should average 60+%, and old forest 

(VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum opening 

size is 1 acre with a maximum width of 125 feet. 

Provide 2 groups of reserve trees per acre with 6 

trees per group when opening size exceeds 0.5. 

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, and 10–15 

tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, p. 29).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 40+%, 

mature forest (VSS 5) should average 50+%, and old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum 

opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width 

of up to 200 feet. Retain 1 group of reserve trees per 

acre of 3–5 trees per group for openings greater than 

1 acre in size. Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, 

and 10–15 tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, pp. 29–30).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

540 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) 

should average 40+%. Opening size is up to 4 acres 

with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group 

of reserve trees, 3–5 trees per group, will be left if 

the opening is greater than an acre in size. Leave at 

least 2 snags per acre, 3 downed logs per acre, and 

5–7 tons of woody debris per acre (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, p. 30).

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should 

average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 

40+ percent. Opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum 

width of up to 200 feet. One group of reserve trees, three to 

five trees per group, will be left if the created 

regeneration opening is greater than an acre in size. Leave 

at least two snags per acre, three downed logs per acre, and 

5 to 7 tons of woody debris per acre.

In acres managed for an open reference condition, 

canopy cover guidelines for VSS 4 through VSS 6 

groups would not apply. One group of reserve trees, 

with a minimum of one to two trees per group will be 

left if the interspace size is greater than an acre in size. 

Interspace size is up to 4 acres. Leave at least two snags 

per acre, three downed logs per acre, and 5 to7 tons of 

woody debris per acre.

Woodland: manage for uneven age conditions to 

sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory 

and understory), age classes, and species 

composition well distributed across the landscape. 

Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody 

debris (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

Vegetation Management – Within Post-fledgling Family Areas

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable forest 

environment for the post-fledging family needs of 

goshawks. The principle difference between within 

the post-fledging family area and outside the postfledging family area is the higher canopy cover 

within the post-fledging family area and smaller 

opening size within the post-fledging family area. 

Vegetative Structural Stage distribution and 

structural conditions are the same within and outside 

the post-fledging family area (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, p. 30).

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Canopy cover is evaluated at the group level within 

mid-aged to old forest structural stages groups (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not within grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and 

VSS 3) or in interspaces, natural meadows and 

grasslands, or other areas not managed for forest 

conditions.

Spruce-fir: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 

4) should average 60+% and for mature (VSS 5) and 

old forest (VSS 6) should average 70+% (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy Cover for mid-aged (VSS 4) 

to old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+% (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 541

Current Kaibab NF Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 50+%. 

Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should 

average 50+% (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change 

Woodland: Maintain existing canopy cover levels 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 30).

No Change

No corresponding forest plan direction Develop and maintain a highly diverse vegetation 

mosaic: 30 to 90 percent of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under ponderosa pine and deciduous tree 

crowns.

No corresponding forest plan direction Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions; the 

interspaces between groups may range from 20 to 200 

feet, but generally between 25 and 100 feet apart from 

drip line to adjacent drip line. This spacing of groups is 

not affected by single trees in the interspace.

No corresponding forest plan direction Each tree group is generally dominated by one 

vegetation structure stage. The spatial arrangement of 

trees, high dispersion of vegetation structural stage 

diversity, and interspaces comprise each uneven-aged 

forest stand. Collectively these stands aggregate to 

uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar to natural 

conditions. 

Glossary

No corresponding forest plan direction Interspaces: The open space between tree groups 

intended to be managed for grass/forb/shrub vegetation 

during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered 

single trees.

No corresponding forest plan direction Stands: Contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in 

forest type, composition, structure, and age class 

distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently uniform 

conditions to be a distinguishable unit.

No corresponding forest plan direction Open reference condition: Forested ponderosa pine 

areas with mollic-integrade soils to be managed as a

relatively open forest with trees typically aggregated in 

small groups within a grass/forb/shrub matrix.

Edited and new text is bolded. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

542 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 65. Alternative C general location of goshawk habitat subject to canopy cover 

requirements in VSS 4 to VSS 6 (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 543

Figure 66. Alternative C general locations of savanna and grassland restoration treatments 

(Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

544 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management. How actions could potentially affect timing, location and size, 

relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was evaluated. 

Timing: The Kaibab National Forest forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1988, and 

plan revision efforts are underway. While the amendment does provide clarification that has been 

lacking since the forest plan was implemented, it is specific to this project.

Location and Size: Suitable goshawk habitat on the Kaibab NF encompasses approximately 

541,000 acres (Keckler 2011, personal communication) and the project area is comprised of about 

399,633 acres of goshawk habitat. The amendment would affect approximately 20 percent of all 

suitable goshawk habitats on the forest and about 27 percent of goshawk habitat within the 

project area. For this reason, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: Alternative C would meet goshawk forest plan 

canopy cover requirements in VSS 4 to 6 in all acres except the 27,675 acres managed for an 

open reference condition. In all acres but the open reference condition acres, actions would move 

toward the desired VSS size class distribution.

For this reason, the amendment is consistent with forest goals for wildlife and fish that promotes 

improving habitats through the development of habitat quality and diversity and the identification 

and protection of key habitats; and for improving habitats for listed threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species of plants and animals and other species as they become threatened or 

endangered (Kaibab NF forest plan, page18). 

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: Table 107 displays the acres associated with 

Kaibab NF geographic areas (GAs) and land use zones (LUZ).

Canopy Cover: The acres of forestwide GAs and LUZ affected by the canopy cover portion 

of the amendment (105,847 acres total) would range from less than 1 percent (LUZ 21) to 33 

percent (GA 10). The amendment is specific to this project and would not impose 

requirements on the future management of canopy cover within these acres of goshawk 

habitat. 

Open Reference Condition: The acres of forestwide GAs affected by the open reference 

condition portion of the amendment (27,675 acres total) would range from less than 1 percent 

(GA 1) to 9 percent (GA 2).The amendment is consistent with the management emphasis of 

providing for multiple uses that includes wildlife habitat and moving ponderosa pine toward
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 545

desired forest structure, including northern goshawk habitats. The amendment is specific to 

this project and would not impose requirements on the future management of the 27,675 acres 

of goshawk non-PFA; however, forest plan revision decisions may. 

Table 107. Alternative C amendment 1 geographic area acres (Kaibab NF)

GA GA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed 

Amendment Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Canopy Cover

GA 2 Williams Forestland 308,394 72,614 24

GA 10 Tusayan Forestland 86,250 28,247 33

GA 3 North Williams Woodland 65,533 1,287 2 

GA 1 Western Williams 

Woodland

169,041 1,970 1 

GA 8 Tusayan Woodland 195,118 1,025 1 

LUZ 21 Developed recreation sites 1,556 702 <1

Mapping 

Error 

Camp Navajo NA – Not in 

land 

management 

plan area

2 NA

Open Reference Condition

GA 2 Williams Forestland 308,394 26,869 9 

GA 3 North Williams Woodland 65,533 500 1 

GA 1 Western Williams 

Woodland

169,041 302 <1

Mapping 

Error 

Camp Navajo NA – Not in 

land 

management 

plan area

4 <1

Relationship to Outputs: Outputs identified in the forest plan are associated with sawtimber and 

other product harvest levels (meet demand for timber while reducing conflict with other 

resources), commercial and personal use firewood programs (MBF), grazing capacity (AUM), 

watershed (acres in unsatisfactory condition and water yield), developed recreation (management 

of public sites at the standard service level), developed and dispersed recreation outputs (RVD), 

transportation (acres closed to off-road vehicle use), habitat diversity (change in habitat diversity 

index), old growth habitat (acres), and average annual wildlife and fish use (WFUD).

The canopy cover portion of the amendment provides clarification and disclosure of methods for 

meeting forest plan requirements. It has no relationship to outputs or to the relationship between 

the level of goods (timber, firewood) and services and would not result in a change in land 

productivity or timber suitability classification.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

546 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Managing a portion of the landscape for an open reference condition affects about 27,675 acres of 

an estimated 490,368 acres of suitable timber lands. The management strategy on these acres 

would result in an extended rotation period between treatments beyond what was considered in 

developing the long-term sustained yield output in the forest plan. In the short term (10-year 

period), the amendment affects about 6 percent of the suitable land base. Due to the minimal 

acres affected, the amendment would not measurably alter outputs in the foreseeable future on a 

forestwide basis or change the long-term relationship between levels of goods (timber, firewood) 

and services. There would be no change in land productivity; therefore, it would not affect timber 

suitability classification.

Whether the 27,675 acres would continue to be managed as suitable timber in the long term will 

be evaluated during the forest plan revision process. No portion of the amendment would affect 

decisions that have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted 

livestock use.

Amendment 2. Mechanical Treatment and Prescribed Fire in 

the Proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area (RNA) (Kaibab NF)

Amendment 2 is a specific, one-time variance for the Kaibab NF portion of the restoration 

project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. 

The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendments would be 

authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Background

Management of the proposed Garland Prairie Research Natural Area (RNA) was addressed in the 

current forest plan but the designation (through an official establishment record) was never 

completed. When Garland Prairie was originally recommended as a RNA, there was a need for 

montane grassland type representation. This is no longer true and, as a result, it does not meet the 

criteria identified in Southwestern Region research natural area process. In the forest plan 

revision process, it is proposed to be managed as the “Garland Prairie Management Area.” 

Currently, the proposed RNA is heavily encroached upon by small to mid-diameter ponderosa 

pine trees and infestations of Dalmation toadflax. Historically, grassland communities on the 

forest had less than 10 percent tree cover. Impacts from grazing, logging, and fire suppression 

practices reduced or eliminated the vegetation necessary to carry low intensity surface fires across 

the landscape, thereby altering the natural fire regimes and allowing uncharacteristic forest 

succession to take place. In addition to past practices, the location of the proposed RNA within 

the urban interface has hindered the ability to use fire as a natural process within the RNA 

(Kaibab NF 2012).

Amendment Description

The amendment would add language to allow prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in order 

to maintain and/or restore the ecological qualities of the proposed RNA. Figure 67 displays the 

proposed mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Edited or added/new text is bolded in table 

108. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 547

Table 108. Alternative C amendment 2 Kaibab NF proposed Garland Prairie Research 

Natural Area (RNA)

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction Proposed New Guideline Language*

No corresponding plan direction 

(see Kaibab NF forest plan, pp.95–

96).

Vegetation Management Planning and Analysis

Utilize mechanical treatment and prescribed burning to reestablish 

the role of fire as a natural process when needed to maintain or 

restore the high elevation grassland ecotone habitat dominated by 

Arizona fescue and mountain muhly, to maintain genetic diversity, 

and move toward historic reference condition. Do not construct fire 

line.

* Edited text is bolded.

Figure 67. Alternative C treatments in the Garland Prairie proposed RNA (Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

548 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Significance Evaluation

Per FSM 1926.51, changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription.

Per FSM 1926.52, circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land management plan 

include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the 

planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2000)), and 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect 

land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period. 

Analysis demonstrated that the proposed amendment is nonsignificant (FSM 1926.51) because 

the actions would not measurably alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long term land 

and resource management and actions. How actions could potentially affect timing, location and 

size, relationship to forest goals, objectives, outputs, and management prescriptions was 

evaluated.

Timing: The Kaibab NF forest plan has been in place (and amended) since 1988, and plan 

revision efforts are underway.

Location and Size: The amendment would affect 100 percent of the 300-acre proposed RNA

(Special Area 7) and acres adjacent to the area. In the context of the forest, it would have no effect 

on other special areas that have been designated because of their unique or special characteristics 

including other RNAs, wilderness, botanical areas, and national recreation trails. While the 

amendment would affect 100 percent of the proposed Garland Prairie RNA, in the context of all 

forest special areas, location and size was determined to be nonsignificant. In the draft forest plan 

(as currently written in 2012), the area would no longer be proposed as a RNA. It would be 

managed as a grassland management area.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: The amendment is consistent with Forest Service 

policy (FSM 4063.02) by maintaining and/or restoring the ecological values associated with the 

proposed RNA. 

Relationship to Outputs: The proposed amendment would affect approximately 100 percent of 

Special Area 7. The RNA is managed as high elevation grassland and is not part of the suitable 

land base (timber, grazing, recreation, minerals, and energy resource activities). Therefore, the 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 549

amendment would not alter outputs or change the long-term relationship between levels of goods 

(timber, commercial and personal use firewood) and services. No grazing capacity exists for the 

proposed RNA and livestock grazing has been excluded since 1989 (Kaibab NF 2012). Therefore, 

the amendment would not affect decisions that have been made through separate analyses on 

grazing capacity or permitted livestock use and would not impose requirements on future 

management of the RNA. 

Amendment 3 – MSO Habitat Management (Kaibab NF)

Amendment 3 is a specific, one-time variance for the Kaibab NF portion of the restoration 

project. Once the project is complete, current forest plan direction would apply to the project area. 

The language proposed does not apply to any other forest project. The amendment would be 

authorized per direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 219 (1982). 

Amendment Description

The amendment, which is specific to restricted habitat in pine-oak, would allow for designating 

less than 10 percent of restricted habitat on the Kaibab NF as target or threshold ( i.e., future 

nesting and roosting habitat) based on the quality of the habitat. Definitions of target and 

threshold habitat would be added since the current forest plan refers to “threshold” in terms of 

values and desired conditions (see Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25) within restricted habitat and 

there is no reference to “target” conditions. In restricted pine-oak habitat, the amendment would 

allow 2,090 acres of restricted habitat to be managed for a minimum range of 110 to 150 basal 

area.

The amendment would remove language that limits PAC treatments in the recovery unit to 10 

percent increments and language that requires the selection of an equal number of untreated PACs 

as controls. The amendment would remove language referencing monitoring (pre- and posttreatment, population, and habitat). Replacement language would defer final project design and 

monitoring to the FWS’ biological opinion specific to MSO for the project.

Background

Incremental Treatments and 

Monitoring Responses to MSO Treatments

Monitoring assesses the effectiveness of management actions and provides the adaptive 

framework for more successful management guidelines. Monitoring habitat allows for the 

modeling future forest conditions to determine if there will be adequate habitat to support MSO 

populations. Monitoring and final project design (addressing incremental treatments) for all 

proposed activities in all MSO habitat would be developed in consultation with the FWS in a 

manner specific to this project.

Manage for Less than 10 Percent 

Restricted Habitat on the Kaibab NF

Overall, about 11.5 percent (8,713 acres) of the 4FRI restricted habitat would be managed as 

current or future threshold habitat. On the Coconino NF portion of the project, where the most 

owls and the most MSO habitat occurs, 13 percent (6,465 acres) of the restricted layer would be 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

550 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

designated as threshold habitat. The Kaibab NF portion of the 4FRI treatment area would have 8 

percent (2,247 acres) of the restricted layer designated as threshold habitat. By creating more 

future nesting and roosting habitat on the Coconino NF, future MSO habitat would be more 

contiguous, better connected for dispersing MSOs, and occur in areas supporting higher densities 

of MSOs than if 10 percent of the restricted layer was designated by individual administrative 

boundaries. 

Manage 2,090 Acres of MSO Restricted Target or 

Threshold Habitat for a Minimum of 110 to 150 Basal Area

The development of 2,090 acres of restricted target and threshold habitats would be managed 

toward meeting a 110 to 150 basal area for MSO nest and roost habitat as recommended in the 

revised MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012). It would allow more of the uncharacteristic in-growth 

of mid-aged and mid-sized trees that currently dominate the 4FRI landscape to be removed while 

retaining nesting and roosting habitat components. Thinning more of these trees would improve 

forest health, increasing the ability to retain large trees, and increase large tree growth rates as 

described in the revised recovery plan. This would increase forest spatial heterogeneity, improve 

tree age diversity, and benefit prey habitat. Increasing the basal area range would provide 

opportunities to mimic canopy gap processes which produce horizontal variation in stand 

structure. These changes would both increase and retain nesting and roosting structure and 

increase understory cover. Research suggests that small mammal biomass (including voles and 

mice) drives spotted owl reproductive output, and thinning smaller trees would improve 

subcanopy flight zone, thereby increasing MSO foraging effectiveness.

Edited or added/new text is bolded in table 109. 

Table 109. Alternative C amendment 3 current and proposed forest plan language

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

MSO Standards

No corresponding direction currently exists The project will comply with the biological 

opinion that has been developed in 

consultation with the FWS.

Provide three levels of habitat management -protected, 

restricted, and other forest and woodland types to achieve a 

diversity of habitat conditions across the landscape (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 22).

No Change

Protected areas include delineated protected activity centers; 

mixed conifer and pine-oak forests with slopes greater than 

40% where timber harvest has not occurred in the last 20 

years; and reserved lands which include wilderness, research 

natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, and congressionally 

recognized wilderness study areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 22).

No Change

Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer, pineoak, and 

riparian forests outside of protected areas (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 22). 

No Change 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 551

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Other forest and woodland types include all ponderosa pine, 

spruce-fir, woodland, and aspen forests outside protected and 

restricted areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 22).

No Change

Survey all potential spotted owl areas including protected, 

restricted, and other forest and woodland types within an 

analysis area plus the area 1/2 mile beyond the perimeter of the 

proposed treatment area (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Establish a protected activity center at all Mexican spotted owl 

sites located during surveys and all management territories 

established since 1989 (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for firewood and fire risk 

abatement in established protected activity centers. For 

protected activity centers destroyed by fire, windstorm, or 

other natural disaster, salvage timber harvest or 

declassification may be allowed after evaluation on a case-bycase basis in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

Allow no timber harvest except for fire risk

abatement in mixed conifer and pine-oak forests

on slopes greater than 40% where timber harvest

has not occurred in the last 20 years (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 23).

No Change

Limit human activity in protected activity centers

during the breeding season (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change

In protected and restricted areas, when activities conducted in 

conformance with these standards and guidelines may 

adversely affect other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species or may conflict with other established recovery plans 

or conservation agreements; consult with US Fish and Wildlife 

Service to resolve the conflict (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

23).

No Change

Monitor changes in owl populations and habitat needed for delisting (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).Deleted

Guidelines– A. General – No Change 

Guidelines – B. Protected Areas, Protected Activity Centers

Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres around the 

activity center using boundaries of known habitat polygons 

and/or topographic features. Written justification for 

boundary delineation should be provided (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 23).

No Change 

The protected activity center boundary should enclose the 

best possible owl habitat configured in as compact a unit as 

possible, with the nest or activity center located near the 

center (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

552 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

The activity center is defined as the nest site. In the absence 

of a known nest, the activity center should be defined as a 

roost grove commonly used during breeding. In the absence 

of a known nest or roost, the activity center should be defined 

as the best nest/roost habitat. (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

23)

No Change 

Protected activity center boundaries should not overlap 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 

Submit protected activity center maps and descriptions to the 

recovery unit working group for comment as soon as possible 

after completion of survey (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 23).

No Change 

Road or trail building in protected activity centers should be 

avoided but maybe permitted on a case-by-case basis for 

pressing management reasons (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

23).

No Change

Generally allow continuation of the level of recreation 

activities that was occurring prior to listing (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 23).

No Change

Require bird guides to apply for and obtain a special use 

permit. A condition of the permit shall be that they obtain a 

subpermit under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Master 

Endangered Species permit. The permit should stipulate the 

sites, dates, number of visits and maximum group size 

permissible (Kaibab NF forest plan, pages 23 to 24).

No Change

Harvest firewood when it can be done in such a way that 

effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within the 

following limitations to minimize effects on the owl (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Retain key forest species such as oak (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 24).

No Change

Retain key habitat components such as snags and large 

downed logs (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter only within 

those protected activity centers treated to abate fire risk as 

described below (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change 

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 24).

No Change

Select for treatment 10% of the protected activity centers 

where nest sites are known in each recovery unit having high 

fire risk conditions. Also select another 10% of the protected 

activity centers where nest sites are known as a paired sample 

to serve as control areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 553

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Designate a 100 acre “no treatment” area around the known 

nest site of each selected protected activity center. Habitat in 

the no treatment area should be as similar as possible in 

structure and composition as that found in the activity center 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, snags, 

clumps of broad-leafed woody vegetation, and hardwood 

trees larger than 10 inches in diameter at the root collar 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Select and treat additional protected activity centers in 10% 

increments if monitoring of the initial sample shows there 

were no negative impacts or there were negative impacts 

which can be mitigated by modifying treatment methods 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk: Use combinations 

of thinning trees less than 9 inches in diameter, mechanical 

fuel treatment and prescribed fire to abate fire risk in the 

remainder of the selected protected activity center outside the 

100 acre "no treatment" area (Kaibab NF forest plan, p. 24).

No Change

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. Select for 

treatment 10% of the protected activity centers where nest 

sites are known in each recovery unit having high fire risk 

conditions. Also select another 10% of the protected activity 

centers where nest sites are known as a paired sample to 

serve as control areas (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk.

Use light prescribed fire in non-selected protected activity 

centers on a case-by-case basis. Burning should avoid a 100-

acre “no treatment” area around the activity center. Large 

woody debris, snags, clumps of broad-leafed woody 

vegetation should be retained and hardwood trees larger than 

10 inches diameter at the root collar (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 24). 

No Change

Pre- and post-treatment monitoring should be conducted in 

all protected activity centers treated for fire risk abatement 

(See monitoring guidelines) (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

24).

Deleted

Steep Slopes (Mixed conifer and pine-oak forests outside protected activity 

centers with slopes greater than 40% that have not been logged within the past 20 years)

No seasonal restrictions apply. Treat fuel accumulations to 

abate fire risk (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Use combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in 

diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and prescribed fire 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

No Change

Retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, snags, 

clumps of broad-leafed woody vegetation, and hardwood tress 

larger than 10 inches in diameter at the root collar (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 24).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

554 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Pre and post treatment monitoring should occur within all 

steep slopes treated for fire risk abatement (See monitoring 

guidelines) (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 24).

Deleted

Reserved Lands (Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

Congressionally Recognized Wilderness Study Areas

Allow fire use where appropriate (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

25).

No Change

C. Restricted Areas (Mixed Conifer, Pine-Oak, and Riparian Forests)

Mixed Conifer and Pine-oak Forests (See glossary definition)

No corresponding direction Target habitat is a category of restricted 

habitat intended to provide future nesting and 

roosting habitat (see glossary definition for 

restricted habitat). The minimum values 

identified for the forest attributes represent 

the threshold for meeting nesting and roosting 

conditions (see the definition for threshold 

habitat). They can also be targets to be 

achieved with time and management. If less 

than 10 percent of the restricted habitat in 

ponderosa pine-Gambel oak qualifies as 

threshold habitat, the areas that can 

eventually achieve all threshold conditions 

simultaneously should be identified as target 

habitat and managed to achieve threshold 

conditions as rapidly as possible. Because no 

known nests or roosts occur in restricted 

habitat, target habitat is considered future 

nesting and roosting habitat.

No corresponding direction Threshold habitat is a category of restricted 

habitat intended to provide for future nesting 

and roosting habitat (see definition for 

restricted habitat). A variety of forest 

structural attributes are used to define when 

nesting and roosting habitat is achieved 

(summarized in table III.B.1 of the 1995 

recovery plan and table C-2 of the 2012 

recovery plan). These values are targets that 

can be achieved with time and management 

(see definition for target habitat). When the 

minimum values identified for the forest 

attributes are met simultaneously, they 

represent the threshold of nesting and roosting 

conditions. Ten percent of restricted habitat in 

ponderosa pine-Gambel oak should be 

designated as threshold habitat. Management 

in threshold habitat cannot lower any of the 

forest attribute values below the nesting and 

roosting threshold unless a landscape analysis 

demonstrates an abundance of this habitat. 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 555

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Because no known nests or roosts occur in 

restricted habitat, target habitat is managed 

as future nesting and roosting habitat.

Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl nest/roost habitat 

well distributed across the landscape. Create replacement owl 

nest/roost habitat where appropriate while providing a 

diversity of stand conditions across the landscape to ensure 

habitat for a diversity of prey species (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 25).

No Change

The following table displays the minimum percentage of 

restricted area which should be managed to have nest/roost 

characteristics. The minimum mixed conifer restricted area 

includes 10% at 170 basal area and an additional 15% of area 

at 150 basal area. The variables are for stand averages, are 

minimum threshold values and must be met simultaneously. In 

project design, no stands simultaneously meeting or exceeding 

the minimum threshold values should be reduced below the 

threshold values unless a district-wide or larger landscape 

analysis of restricted areas shows that there is a surplus of 

restricted area acres simultaneously meeting the threshold 

values. Management should be designed to create minimum 

threshold conditions on project areas where there is a deficit of 

stands simultaneously meeting minimum threshold conditions 

unless the district-wide or larger landscape analysis shows 

there is a surplus (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

Table 13 displays the minimum percentage of 

restricted area which should be managed to have 

nest/roost characteristics. The minimum mixed 

conifer restricted area includes 10 percent at 170 

basal area and an additional 15 percent of area at 

150 basal area. In pine-oak, the minimum 

restricted area includes up to 10 percent at 

170 BA and 15 percent of area at 110 to 150 

basal area. The variables are for stand averages, 

are minimum target and threshold habitat 

values, and must be met simultaneously. In 

project design, no stands simultaneously meeting 

or exceeding the minimum target and threshold 

habitat values should be reduced below the 

target and threshold values unless a districtwide 

or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas 

shows that there is a surplus of restricted area 

acres simultaneously meeting the threshold 

values. Management should be designed to create 

minimum target and threshold habitat

conditions on project areas where there is a 

deficit of stands simultaneously meeting 

minimum target and threshold habitat

conditions unless the districtwide or larger 

landscape analysis shows there is a surplus.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

556 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Minimum Percentage of Restricted Areas Managed for Nest/Roost Characteristics

Variable

Mixed 

Conifer All 

RU

Mixed 

Conifer

Other RU*

Pine-Oak Target and 

Threshold Habitat**

Restricted Area Percent 10% +15% Up to 10%

Stand Averages for:

Basal Area 170 150 110–150

18 inch+ trees/ac 20 20 20

Oak Basal Area NA NA 20

Percent total existing:

12–18” 10 10 15

18–24” 10 10 15

24+” 10 10 15

*Mixed Conifer Other RU applies to the Kaibab NF.

**Pine-Oak Target and Threshold Habitat applies to the Williams RD, Kaibab NF.

Attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns by incorporating 

natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various 

patch sizes, into management prescriptions (Kaibab NF forest 

plan, page 25).

No Change

Maintain all species of native trees in the landscape including 

early seral species (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus producing 

horizontal variation in stand structure (Kaibab NF forest plan, 

page 25).

No Change

Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands to greater than 200 

years. Silvicultural prescriptions should explicitly state when 

vegetative manipulation will cease until rotation age is reached 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Save all trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. In pine-oak forests, 

retain existing large oaks and promote growth of additional 

large oaks (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Encourage prescribed and wildland fire use to reduce 

hazardous fuel accumulation. Thinning from below may be 

desirable or necessary before burning to reduce ladder fuels 

and the risk of crown fire (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 25).

No Change

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat components: Snags 

18 inches in diameter and larger down logs over 12 inches 

midpoint diameter hardwoods for retention, recruitment, and 

replacement of large hardwoods (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 

25).

No Change
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 557

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Riparian Areas – No Change

Domestic Livestock Grazing – No Change

Old Growth – No Change

D. Other Forest and Woodland Types – No Change

E. Specific Recovery Units on the Kaibab NF – No Change

F. Monitoring Guidelines

Monitoring and evaluation should be collaboratively planned 

and coordinated with involvement from each national forest, 

USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS Regional 

Office, USFS Regional Office, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, recovery team, and recovery unit working groups 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 26).

See “Standards” for monitoring direction

Population monitoring should be a collaborative effort with 

participation of all appropriate resource agencies (Kaibab NF 

forest plan, page 26).

Deleted

Habitat monitoring of gross habitat changes should be a 

collaborative effort of all appropriate resource agencies 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 26).

Deleted

Habitat monitoring of treatment effects (pre- and posttreatment) should be done by the agency conducting the 

treatment (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted

Range-wide: Track gross changes in acres of owl habitat 

resulting from natural and human caused disturbances. 

Acreage changes in vegetation composition, structure, and 

density should be tracked, evaluated, and reported. Remote 

sensing techniques should provide an adequate level of 

accuracy (Kaibab NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted

In protected and restricted areas where silvicultural or fire 

abatement treatments are planned, monitor treated stands preand post-treatment to determine changes and trajectories in 

fuel levels; snag basal areas; live tree basal areas; volume of 

down logs over 12 inches in diameter; and basal area of 

hardwood trees over 10 inches in diameter at the root crown 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted

Upper Gila Mountain, Basin and Range East, and Basin and 

Range West Recovery Units: Assist the recovery team and 

recovery unit working groups to establish sampling units 

consisting of 19 to 39 square mile quadrats randomly allocated 

to habitat strata. Quadrats should be defined based on 

ecological boundaries such as ridge lines and watersheds. 

Quadrat boundaries should not traverse owl territories (Kaibab 

NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

558 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Current Kaibab NF 

Forest Plan Direction

Proposed New Standard or Guideline 

Language*

Twenty percent of the quadrats will be replaced each year at 

random. Using the sample quadrats, monitor the number of 

territorial individuals and pairs per quadrat; reproduction; 

apparent survival; recruitment; and age structure. Track 

population density both per quadrat and habitat stratum 

(Kaibab NF forest plan, page 27).

Deleted

* Edited text is bolded.

Figure 68. Alternative C amendment 3 landscape target and threshold analysis (Coconino 

NF and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 559

Figure 69. General locations of MSO threshold habitat on the Kaibab NF
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

560 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 70. General location of MSO target and threshold habitat treatments within the 

project area (Coconino NF and Kaibab NF)
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 561

Figure 71. Alternative C amendment 1 general locations of MSO target and threshold 

habitat managed from 110 to 150 basal area (Kaibab NF)

Significance Evaluation

Timing: In terms of timing, the forest plan has been in place and amended several times since 

1988, and revision efforts are underway. The forest plan incorporated direction (via an 

amendment) from the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s 1996 “Amendment of Forest Plans 

Record of Decision” (USDA 1996). The actions allowed via the amendment are consistent with 

existing forest plan direction in that it designates future nesting and rooting habitat areas that at 

least minimally support target/threshold conditions or have the site potential to reach target 

conditions and whose current conditions most closely approaches target/threshold conditions. 

Location and Size: There are 26,818 acres of MSO restricted habitat occurring entirely on the 

Kaibab NF. The amendment would affect the percentage of restricted acres designated as 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

562 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

threshold habitat (8 percent), resulting in 2,247 acres on the Kaibab NF. About 11.5 percent of the 

designated restricted habitat would be managed for future nesting/roosting habitat across the 4FRI

treatment area. Approximately 2,090 acres of restricted target and threshold habitats would be 

managed toward meeting a 110 to 150 BA for MSO nest and roost habitat. Monitoring in all MSO 

habitat would be in compliance with the FWS biological opinion for the project.

Relationship to Forest Goals and Objectives: Changing the minimal target/threshold acres in 

restricted habitat (2,247 acres) would not change the overall direction to manage for future 

nesting/roosting habitat on 10 percent of restricted acres across the planning area landscape as 

described in the forest plan. About 8,713 acres (about 111⁄2 percent) are classified as target and 

threshold habitat in the 4FRI treatment area on both the Kaibab and Coconino NFs.

The development of 2,090 acres of restricted target and threshold habitats would be managed 

toward meeting a 110 to 150 BA for MSO nest and roost habitat as recommended in the MSO 

recovery plan (USDI 2012). This equates to affecting 8 percent of all MSO habitat on the Kaibab 

NF. Thinning more of these trees would improve forest health and increase the ability to retain 

large trees and increase large tree growth rates as described in the 2012 recovery plan. This would 

increase forest spatial heterogeneity, improve tree age diversity, and benefit prey habitat. 

Increasing the BA range would provide opportunities to mimic canopy gap processes which 

produce horizontal variation in stand structure. These changes would both increase and retain 

nesting and roosting structure and increase understory cover. Research suggests that small 

mammal biomass (including voles and mice) drives spotted owl reproductive output, and thinning 

smaller trees could improve subcanopy flight zone, thereby increasing MSO foraging 

effectiveness.

The amendment is consistent with forest plan goals for wildlife and fish. The project would 

improve habitat quality and diversity in both the short and long term and provide quality oldgrowth habitats (Kaibab National Forest forest plan, page 12). It would improve habitat for listed 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and animals and work toward recovery and 

delisting of species (Kaibab National Forest forest plan, page 18). The amendment is consistent 

with goals and objectives of the recovery plan to provide continuous replacement nest habitat 

over space and time, and by identifying stands that have the potential to reach target conditions 

and whose current conditions most closely approach those conditions (USDI 1995). 

The amendment removes language that addresses pre- and post-treatment, population and habitat 

monitoring and replaces it with language that focuses on implementing the requirements in the 

FWS biological opinion. Delaying treatment in PACs would leave occupied MSO habitat at risk 

of loss from high-severity fire. Arizona’s two largest fires account for nearly a million and half 

acres of forested land burned since 2002. Both fires included high-severity fire in PAC habitat. 

Other fires burning in the Upper Gila Recovery Unit have charred additional acres of MSO 

protected habitat. Most climate models suggest that the Southwest will experience higher 

temperatures and increased variability in precipitation, which will significantly affect fire regimes 

and forest health (Aumack et al. 2007). 

The FWS urges a deliberate and cautious approach to management activities within PACs (USDI 

2012). Silvicultural modeling of the proposed treatments indicates limited change to forest 

structure after implementation. However, the treatments are expected to include increased tree 

growth rates to reduce the time needed for developing large trees (defined as 18-inch d.b.h. and 

greater in the current recovery plan for the MSO), maintaining existing large trees, and decreasing 
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 563

surface fuels and increasing crown base height. Combined, this should develop and maintain 

MSO nesting and roosting habitat, a key aspect of the recovery plans, while decreasing risk of 

crown fire.

Forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments would be evaluated over time. Monitoring would 

be designed and implemented to evaluate the effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments on spotted owl habitat, and to retain or move toward MSO desired future 

conditions as described in the draft recovery plan. The details on accomplishing the monitoring 

goals will be developed specifically for this approach through coordination with the FWS under 

formal consultation, as described in the ESA. In this way, work to protect and improve owl 

habitat can be accomplished in a timely manner while emphasizing monitoring and feedback 

loops to allow management to be adaptive. For these reasons, the amendment as it relates to preand post-treatment, population, and habitat monitoring is consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives.

Designating target or threshold habitat in the project with the best potential would move toward

desired percentages in restricted (recovery) habitat, consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives.

Relationship to Management Prescriptions: The intent of managing 2,247 acres of restricted 

habitat to current or future threshold conditions and managing 2,090 acres toward 110 to 150 

basal area is consistent with the management emphasis of providing for multiple uses that 

includes wildlife habitat and meeting MSO standards and guidelines which emphasize improving 

and maintaining the quality of the habitat and moving ponderosa pine toward desired forest 

structure, including MSO habitats (table 110). Both actions affect 1 percent or less of GA 2.

Table 110. Alternative B Kaibab NF Amendment 2 Geographic Area (GA) Acres

GA GA Description Forestwide 

Acres

Proposed Amendment 

Acres

Forestwide Acres 

Affected (Percent)

Manage Restricted Habitat for 110 to 150 Basal Area 

GA-2 Williams Forestland 308,394 2,090 < 0.01

Manage Restricted Habitat for Future Threshold Conditions

GA -2 Williams Forestland 308,394 2,247 1 

Relationship to Outputs: In comparison to the forest’s total suitable timber lands (479,132 

acres), the amendment would affect less than 0.01 percent of those lands. For this reason, 

mechanical treatment and management within current MSO threshold or future threshold (i.e., 

target) habitat would not measurably increase or decrease timber outputs or firewood availability. 

There would be no measurable effect to outputs from deferring the final design of treatments and 

monitoring to the project’s biological opinion. The amendment would not affect decisions that 

have been made through separate analyses on grazing capacity or permitted livestock use.

Alternative D – Coconino National Forest 

Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Three nonsignificant, site-specific forest plan amendments are proposed for alternative D.
Appendix B – Forest Plan Amendments

564 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Amendment 1. MSO Habitat Management (Coconino NF)

Amendment Description

This amendment is the same as described for alternative B. Although alternative D reduces the 

acres that would receive prescribed fire, the amendment would still be required to address 

mechanical treatment above 9-inch d.b.h., eliminating incremental treatments within PACs, and 

deferring monitoring to the project’s FWS biological opinion.

Amendment 2. Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine 

With an Open Reference Condition Within Goshawk Habitat (Coconino NF)

This amendment is the same as described for alternative B. The key difference between the 

alternatives is the acres that would receive prescribed fire. In alternative D, the acres of 

prescribed fire would be reduced from 587,923 acres in alternative B to 178,790 acres. Any 

difference in acres of prescribed fire would not eliminate the need for a plan amendment that 

addresses managing acres for an open reference condition.

Amendment 3. Effect Determination 

for Cultural Resources (Coconino NF)

Amendment 3 is the same as described for alternative B. The reduction in acres to receive 

prescribed fire in alternative D would not eliminate the need for a plan amendment that addresses 

managing for “no effect” or “no adverse effect” for heritage resources.

Alternative D – Kaibab National Forest 

Site-Specific Nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendments

Two nonsignificant forest plan amendments are proposed in alternative D. 

Amendment 1. Management of Canopy Cover and Ponderosa Pine 

With an Open Reference Condition Within Goshawk Habitat (Kaibab NF)

This amendment is similar alternative B. However, the acres to be managed for an open reference 

condition in alternative D would be reduced by about 40 acres when compared to alternative B. 

The effects of managing for a reduced number of acres (40 acres) is not measurable. The 

significance evaluation findings are the same as described in alternative B.

The key difference between alternative B and alternative D are the acres that would receive 

prescribed fire. In alternative D, the acres of prescribed fire would be reduced from 587,923 acres 

in alternative B to 178,790 acres. Any difference in acres of prescribed fire would not eliminate 

the need for a plan amendment that addresses managing acres for an open reference condition. 

Amendment 2. MSO Habitat Management (Kaibab NF)

This amendment is the same as described for alternative B. Although alternative D reduces the 

acres that would receive prescribed fire, the amendment would still be required to eliminate 

incremental treatments within PACs, defer monitoring to the project’s FWS biological opinion, 

and manage the project area for less than 10 percent restricted habitat.
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 565

Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

Design features, BMPs, and mitigation that are common to all action alternatives (B–D) are presented for each resource with one exception. 

Silviculture design features can be found in Appendix D – Implementation Plan. 

Table 111. Alternatives B, C, and D design features, best management practices, and mitigation

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

Aquatics 

A1 See Soil and Water: SW1 to SW 34 and Fire Ecology: FE2

Botany 

B1 Follow forest plan direction for special areas including botanical areas 

and research natural areas. 

X Preserve special features and meet intent of 

designation. 

B2 Determine potential occurrences and habitat of Southwestern Region 

sensitive plants in potential activity areas when planning for 

implementation. Identify potential species and survey the area to be 

treated before implementation.

X Complies with FSM direction 2670. Manual 

direction (FSM 2670.5(19)) emphasizes that 

management actions should avoid or minimize 

impacts to sensitive species.

B3 Mitigate negative effects from management actions on Southwestern

Region sensitive plants during design and implementation.

X Complies with FSM direction, minimizes 

impacts to Southwestern Region sensitive 

plants.

B4 Prohibit slash pile construction within populations of Southwestern

Region sensitive plants. Construct slash piles at least 10 to 20 feet away 

from known populations of Southwestern Region sensitive plants. Place 

slash piles on previously used locations such as old piling sites, old log 

deck sites, or other disturbed sites to avoid severe disturbance to 

additional locations where possible. Monitor slash pile sites after burning 

and control noxious or invasive weeds (see FE10). 

X Mitigates effects of disturbance and burning. 

Reduces loss of native seed bank, limits extent 

of severe disturbances, and reduces severely 

disturbed sites that are more prone to invasion 

by noxious or invasive weeds.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

566 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

B5 Prohibit temporary road construction and reconstruction, tracked 

vehicles, and pits within populations of Southwestern Region sensitive 

plants.

X Eliminates direct loss of plants.

B6 Prohibit construction and reconstruction of log landings in identified 

populations of Southwestern Region sensitive plants.

X Mitigates effects of disturbance. Follows 

management plan guidance of the 

management plan for Hedeoma diffusum

(Flagstaff pennyroyal).

B7 Follow the guidance of the “Arizona Bugbane Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy, Coconino and Kaibab NFs” (1995) when planning 

activities near Arizona bugbane populations. An example of mitigation 

for this species includes preservation of shade and cool microsites for 

existing populations. This may require special attention in upland areas 

near canyon edges.

X Mitigates effects to Arizona bugbane, a FWS 

candidate species. Follows guidance of 

conservation assessment and strategy and 

complies with policy.

B8 Manage fire severity in all entries in or near Arizona bugbane 

populations to minimize tree mortality.

X Preserves the shady, mesic environment and 

overstory needed for Arizona bugbane.

B9 Follow the guidance of the management plan for Hedeoma diffusum

(Flagstaff pennyroyal) when working in suitable habitat for this species. 

Examples of mitigations include restrictions on distance for building 

temporary roads near existing populations. 

X 

B10 Deferrals and groups may include Southwestern Region sensitive plant 

groups where practical, using areas not occupied by the plants as 

interspaces.

X Provide protection and shade needed by the 

sensitive plants while allowing for the least 

impact on clump/group/interspace design and 

layout during implementation and help

mitigate impacts to Southwestern Region 

sensitive plants.

B11 Survey springs and channels for Southwestern Region sensitive plants 

before implementation and identify locations. Inform the forest botanist 

if new locations are found and mitigate effects to plants and populations. 

Mitigations include avoiding plants, altering designs, or including plants 

X Protects populations and habitat of 

Southwestern Region sensitive plants. Protects 

sneezeweed since it grows in ephemeral 

stream courses, springs, ponds, stock tanks, 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 567

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

in enclosures. Incorporates buffer strips along drainages. See soil and 

water SW8.

and meadows.

B12 Survey springs and channels for Bebb’s willow before implementation 

and identify locations. Inform the forest botanist if new locations are 

found and mitigate effects to plants and populations. Mitigations include 

avoiding plants, altering designs, or including plants in enclosures. 

Identify opportunities to enhance Bebb’s willow where plants are 

decadent or dying. Manual grubbing of grasses may be used to increase 

the likelihood of planting success.

X – Coconino 

NF only

Protects populations and habitat of Bebb’s 

willow. Bebb’s willow stands would be 

enhanced by using cuttings, planting locally 

cultivated plants, and fencing existing or 

newly planted willows.

B13 Manage prescribed burns to promote native species and to hinder weed 

species germination.

X Promote healthy native plant communities and 

reduces the risk of noxious or invasive weed 

invasions.

B14 Fire lines would be placed around Bebb’s willows and dead branches 

within the clumps would be removed before prescribed burning adjacent 

areas to reduce the risk of fire impacting willows. Also see FE5.

X Aids in restoring Bebb’s willow which is a 

Southwestern Region sensitive species for the 

Coconino NF and a rare species on the 

landscape for both forests.

B15 Follow the guidance in appendix B of the “Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds, 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona” including: (1) surveying the treatment area 

and evaluating weeds present before implementation; avoiding or 

removing sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent new weed 

infestations and the spread of existing weeds; (2) treating weed 

infestations within treatment units before implementing treatments; (3) 

managing prescribed fires as an aid to control of existing weed 

infestations and to prevent the spread of existing weeds; and (4) 

monitoring slash pile sites after burning and control noxious or invasive 

weeds.

X Provides guidance and mitigation for noxious 

or invasive weeds and complies with 

amendment 20 of the Coconino NF forest plan 

and amendment 7 of the Kaibab NF forest 

plan. 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

568 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

B16 Incorporate weed prevention and control into project layout, design, 

alternative evaluation, and project decisions. Prevent spread of potential 

and existing noxious or invasive weeds by vehicles used in management 

activities by washing vehicles and equipment prior to entering the project 

area and when moving from one area to another. Review timber sale 

contract clauses for vehicle cleaning and incorporate appropriate clauses. 

Also see SW4 for timber sale clauses and FE10 that addresses 

preventative measures for weeds from prescribed burning.

X Mitigate effects of management actions on 

existing and potential noxious or invasive 

weed infestations; measure is complementary 

to timber sale contract clause CT WO-C/CT 

6.36 and watershed best management 

practices.

Fire Ecology

FE1 Burn unit size, as well as strategic placement, would be a consideration 

in designing units and implementation prioritization (Finney et al. 2003).

X Arrangements of large treatment areas are 

more effective at reducing fire behavior than 

arrangements of smaller ones. Larger burn 

blocks, when possible, would also be 

mitigation for emissions by increasing the 

potential number of acres that could be burned

in a burn window. Larger burn units would 

produce more smoke when prescribed fires are 

implemented, but for a shorter duration.

FE2 Prescribed fire (pile, broadcast, and jackpot burning) would occur in 

accordance with ADEQ requirements. Coordination with ADEQ would 

take place through the Kaibab and Coconino NF Zone Dispatch Center 

and the prescribed burn boss.

X Regulatory requirement.

FE3 Emission reduction techniques (ERT) (see FE8) would be utilized when 

possible to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors of burn unit(s). 

Project design for prescribed fire and strategies for managing wildfires 

should incorporate as many emission reduction techniques as feasible, 

subject to economic, technical, and safety criteria, and land management 

objectives. Decision documents (which define the objectives and 

document line officer approval of the strategies chosen for wildfires) 

should identify smoke sensitive receptors, and include objectives and 

X ERTs are recommended by the ADEQ as 

techniques that can be effective for 

minimizing impacts to sensitive receptors.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 569

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

courses of action to minimize and mitigate impacts to those receptors as 

feasible.

FE4 As needed, the burning of hand piles or machine piles would occur when 

conditions are favorable and risk of fire spread is low. Piles would be 

located far enough away from residual trees and shrub patches to 

minimize canopy scorch or damage to ponderosa pine or large oak (>6′′ 

d.b.h.) where it is not desirable. Individual piles or groups of piles may 

have fire line cut around them if necessary to meet objectives. 

X Prevent undesirable impacts.

FE5 Fire line construction may consist of removing woody and/or herbaceous 

vegetation, removing surface fuels, pruning, or cutting breaks in fuels by 

hand, ATV (drag lines), or a dozer as needed; (2) fire line width would 

be determined as adjacent fuels and expected fire behavior dictate, as 

well as compliance with the requirements of cultural, wildlife, and other 

resource areas; (3) constructed fire lines would be rehabilitated, which 

may include pulling removed material back into the lines, hand 

constructing water diversion channels and/or water bars, laying shrubs or 

woody debris in the lines following burning, or other methods 

appropriate to the site. 

X Facilitate broadcast burns or pile burning 

operations.

FE6 Mechanical treatments following broadcast burns would occur after 

surface vegetation has recovered sufficiently to minimize impacts from 

the mechanical treatments (generally 1 to 3 years). Prescribed fire 

treatments following mechanical treatments would occur after there has 

been adequate surface vegetation recovery that fuel loads are sufficient 

to meet the objectives of a prescribed burn.

X Minimize impacts from mechanical treatments 

on vegetation and soil.

FE7 Prescribed fires may be conducted before or after mechanical treatments. 

The sequencing of prescribed fires and mechanical treatments would be 

decided on a site-specific basis, depending on the site, burn windows, 

available resources, thinning schedules, etc.

X Increase the flexibility for implementing both 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments.

FE8 The following ADEQ ERTs would be used when practicable to minimize 

impacts to sensitive receptors: pre-burn fuel removal, mechanical 

X Reduce emissions from prescribed fire.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

570 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

processing, increased burning frequency, aerial/mass ignition, high 

moisture in large fuels, rapid mopup, air curtain incinerators, burn before 

greenup, backing fire, maintain fire line intensity, underburn before 

litterfall, isolating fuels, concentrating fuels, mosaic/jackpot burning, 

moist litter and duff, burn before large activity fuels cure, and utilize 

piles.

FE9 Mitigation and design features for smoke impacts include: (1) Reducing 

the emissions produced for a given area treated, (2) Redistributing/

diluting the emissions through meteorological scheduling and by 

coordinating with other burners in the airshed. Dilution involves 

controlling the rate of emissions or scheduling for dispersion to assure 

tolerable concentrations of smoke in designated areas, and (3) Avoidance 

uses meteorological conditions when scheduling burning in order to 

avoid incursions of wildland fire smoke into smoke sensitive areas. Also 

see FE8 for ERTs.

Reduce emissions from prescribed fire.

FE10 When prescribed burns are conducted in areas with, or near known 

populations of invasive weeds, followup monitoring would be 

conducted. Also see Botany B4. 

X Detect new weed infestations before they 

spread.

FE 11 See Rangeland Management: R1, R4, and R5. X Prevent damage or loss of infrastructure.

FE12 When practicable, damage or mortality to old trees and large trees would 

be mitigated by implementing prescription parameters, ignition 

techniques, raking, wetting, thinning, compressing slash, or otherwise 

mitigating fire impacts to the degree necessary to meet burn objectives 

and minimize fire line intensity and heat per unit area in the vicinity of 

old trees. Trees identified as being of particular concern (e.g., trees with 

known nests or roots for herons, eagles, osprey, or other raptors, 

occupied nest cores, or critical areas in PACs) would be managed in 

accordance with wildlife design features (see wildlife). Prepare old trees 

1 year or more before a burn if possible.

X Old trees and large trees are rare components 

and are underrepresented across the analysis 

area. Implementing mitigation measures when 

possible is a critical component of restoration 

on a landscape scale. Large trees that are not 

old are not as susceptible to damage from fire. 

Mitigation measures that can be implemented 

a year or more before a burn, such as thinning 

or raking, may improve the health of the tree, 

improving its response to fire.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 571

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

FE13 Mitigation measures and design features for wildlife species including 

MSO, golden eagle, bald eagle, pronghorn, northern goshawk, bats, 

northern leopard frog, turkey, deer, and other wildlife can be found in the 

wildlife section.

FE14 Aspen, Gambel oak, pine-sage: fire effects would be managed primarily 

by implementing prescriptions and ignition techniques to meet objectives 

in pine-sage systems. In Gambel oak, avoid lighting near the bases of 

large oak boles.

X To meet burn objectives. 

FE15 Concerned/interested public will be given as much warning as possible 

in advance of prescribed burns via notices, press releases, email lists, 

public announcements, phone lists, or other notification methods as 

appropriate.

X To provide advanced notice for publics 

concerned about potential impacts from 

emissions resulting from prescribed fires.

Heritage Resources and Tribal Relations 

HR/TR1 The forest would comply with the NHPA for all ground-disturbing 

undertakings. Effects to cultural resources would be determined in 

consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties. Potential 

effects would be addressed through site avoidance strategies and 

implementing the site protection measures listed in the Southwestern

Region programmatic agreement (PA), appendix J and in the 4FRI 

heritage strategy and section 106 clearance report.

X Regulatory requirement. Compliance with 

NHPA and Southwestern Region PA with AZ 

SHPO.

HR/TR2 Consult with Native Americans in compliance with NHPA, AIRFA, EO 

13007, EO 13175, and other applicable Executive Orders and legislation, 

particularly when projects and activities are planned in sites or areas of 

known religious or cultural significance.

X Regulatory requirement. Compliance with 

NHPA and Southwestern Region PA with AZ 

SHPO.

HR/TR3 Project undertakings would be inventoried for cultural resources and 

areas of Native American religious and cultural use.

X Regulatory requirement. Compliance with 

NHPA and Southwestern Region PA with AZ 

SHPO.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

572 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

HR/TR4 Eligible, or potentially eligible, cultural resources would be managed to 

achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination whenever 

possible, in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800).

X Regulatory requirement. Compliance with 

NHPA and Southwestern Region PA with AZ 

SHPO.

HR/TR5 Monitoring during and after project implementation would occur to 

document site protection and condition. Also see FE5. 

X Forest plan compliance.

HR/TR6 See Recreation and Scenery RS3 and RS5 for mitigation related to 

historic roads and trails.

X Forest plan compliance.

HR-TR7 Prior to initiating project-specific task orders, the forests would consult 

with federally recognized tribes to identify traditional use areas and, if 

necessary, develop project-specific mitigation measures to accommodate 

traditional use of the forest by tribal members.

X 

HR-TR8 When areas are selected for treatment, detailed maps of the area would 

be presented to tribes through ongoing tribal consultation to determine if 

other sensitive areas of tribal importance could be potentially impacted.

X 

HR-TR9 Treatment timing would be adjusted to coincide with seasonal plant 

gathering and ceremonial use.

X 

HR-TR10See FE 5 X 

Rangeland Management

R1 Historic range monitoring sites including witness trees/posts, 1′′

angle iron stakes, and any other site location markers would be 

protected. These sites would not be excluded from treatment but 

care needs to be taken to avoid loss of these site markers. These 

sites would not be used as locations for temporary access roads, 

skid trails, landing areas, or large slash piles.

X Avoid site damage.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 573

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

R2 The sale administrator would work closely with the district range 

staff to determine pasture use during harvest activities.

X Avoid infrastructure damage, and retain 

allotment and pasture fences within a 

harvest area.

R3 All fences in the cutting area would be protected from harvest 

activities. Skid trail layout would keep equipment on one side of 

the fence to avoid having to cut fences. Temporary cattle guards 

would be installed on all haul roads where gates exist within active 

grazed pastures. All cattle guards on harvest haul roads would be 

maintained throughout hauling activities.

X Protect infrastructure.

R4 Burning often damages/destroys wood stays and h-brace posts in 

existing pasture/allotment fencing. Protection of these fences is 

critical for implementation of planned grazing systems and is 

important to reduce the costs of replacing these items. Even with 

protection, wood stays and h-braces would be damaged by the fire. 

The cost of prescribed burning would include fence protection 

measures and replacement/reconstruction costs for burned wood 

stays and h-braces. Fire personnel will look at using the fence 

lines as burn area boundaries whenever possible to reduce these 

impacts.

X Limit the numbers of pastures affected by 

the fires in a given year. Protect fences 

that are critical to the implementation of 

planned grazing systems and reduce the 

costs of replacing these items.

R5 Fire personnel would coordinate with district range staff to 

schedule main pasture burning to limit impacts to allotment 

grazing management. The general goal would be to limit burns to 

no more than one main grazing pasture/year/allotment in 

allotments with a less than, or equal to, six pasture grazing system. 

The general goal would be to limit burns to no more than two 

main grazing pastures/year/allotment in allotments with a greater 

than six pasture grazing system. Main pastures are pastures that 

are large enough to hold the allotments livestock for more than an 

average of 20 days per year. This is a general rule of thumb; 

however, each allotment has specific situations that would need to 

be addressed.

X Minimize disruption to grazing.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

574 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

R6 Restrictions in grazing of livestock would primarily occur after 

prescribed fire in a pasture. Post-fire grazing may resume within a 

pasture when soil and perennial plants, that would likely be 

grazed, would not be permanently damaged by livestock. The 

range management definition for this is range readiness. Plants are 

ready for grazing when at least one of the following characteristics 

is present: (1) seed heads or flowers, (2) multiple leaves or 

branches, and/or (3) a root system that does not allow plants to be 

easily pulled from the ground. These characteristics provide 

evidence of plant recovery, high vigor, and reproductive ability. 

An estimate of this restriction is not available because each 

pasture and burn is unique. Climatic conditions, soils, vegetation, 

burn intensity, burn amount, and pasture management can vary 

greatly from year to year or from pasture to pasture.

X Assessment of post-fire range readiness.

R7 The removal or exclusion of livestock water would be mitigated 

with alternative water sources, providing lanes to the water, or 

piping water to a livestock drinker.

X Provide alternate water sources.

Recreation, Trails, Scenery, and Special Areas

RS1 Edges of Individual Units: (a) Edges of treatment units would be 

shaped and/or feathered to avoid abrupt changes between treated 

and untreated areas; (b) where the treatment unit is adjacent to 

denser forest (treated or untreated), the percent of thinning within 

the transition zone (150–250′) would be progressively reduced 

toward the denser edges of the unit; (c) where the treatment unit 

interfaces with an opening (including savanna and grassland 

treatments, and natural openings) the transition zone would 

progressively increase toward the open edges of the unit; (d) 

soften edges by thinning adjacent to the existing unit boundaries. 

Treat up to the edges; do not leave a screen of trees. Favor groups 

of trees complying with the prescribed treatment that visually 

connect with the unit’s edge to avoid an abrupt and noticeable 

X X Compliance with forest plans.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 575

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

change; (e) treatment boundaries should extend up and over 

ridgelines to avoid the “mohawk” look; and (f) avoid widely 

spaced individual trees that are silhouetted along the skylines.

RS2 Unit Marking: (a) Avoid using trails as boundaries and (b) avoid 

abrupt changes between treatment units. Use the techniques 

suggested for edges of treatment units (above).

X X Compliance with forest plans.

RS3 Road, Skid Trail, and Landing Construction: (a) Utilize dust

abatement methods during haul of logs on the following roads 

shown in the table during the season when dust is likely and 

funding is available. Coordinate with Coconino County on the 

application and timing of application of dust abatement on road 

segments that have county maintenance responsibilities:

Road 

Number

Beginning 

Milepost

Ending 

Milepost Segment Length

556 0.734 1.245 0.511

418 0.004 1.004 1

418 1.697 2.372 0.675

0716B 0 0.76 0.76

140 5.657 6.158 0.501

141 3.134 3.431 0.297

141 14.303 14.963 0.66

141 31.487 33.968 2.481

(b) Where new temporary roads and skid trails meet a primary 

travel route, they should intersect at a right angle, then curve after 

the junction to minimize the length of route seen from the primary 

travel route; (c) Log landings, temporary roads, and skid trails 

should be minimized within sensitive viewsheds; (d) Highest 

emphasis would be placed on foreground (up to 300 feet) of 

X X Compliance with forest plans.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

576 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

developed recreation sites, private homes or communities, and 

concern level 1 roads (paved roads and passenger car level roads); 

(e) Log landings, skid trails, and temporary roads would be 

rehabilitated including restoring proper drainage and reseeding as 

needed with native species, and trails, especially those designated 

as national scenic, historic, or recreation trails; (f) GPS the log 

landings for post-treatment consideration for parking or dispersed 

camping; (g) To hasten recovery and help eliminate unauthorized 

motorized and nonmotorized use of skid trails and temporary 

roads, use physical measures such as recontouring, pulling slash 

and rocks across the line, placing cull logs perpendicular to the 

route, and disguising entrances; (h) Avoid using FS designated 

trails as skid trails or for temporary roads; (i) National scenic, 

historic, and recreation trails as well as forest system trails 

(motorized and nonmotorized) would not be used for temporary 

roads or skid trails. It is acceptable to make perpendicular trail 

crossings. The locations of crossings would be designated. Trail 

crossings would be restored to pre-project condition after use; (j) 

Crossing of the Arizona Trail would be done sparingly and only if 

no other alternative exists. These crossing locations would be 

coordinated with district recreation staff; and (k) Large, upright 

trail cairns used on Beale Wagon Road and Overland Trail must 

be protected. Locate cairns ahead of time. Logging operations 

would not damage the cairns.

RS4 Cull Logs, Stump Heights, and Slash Treatments: Cull logs

would not be abandoned on landings. Use cull logs for closing 

temporary roads and decommissioning roads. Cull logs may also 

be suitable to use as down woody material, but must be scattered 

away from the landings. Stump heights should be cut as low as 

possible, with a maximum height of 12 inches. In the foreground 

of sensitive roads, trails, recreation sites, private homes/ 

communities, strive to make stump heights 6′′ or lower, with 12′′

heights as the exception, and rarely occurring. Slash must be 

X X Compliance with forest plans.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 577

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

treated or removed. In the seen area immediate foreground of 

sensitive places (within 300′ of the centerline of concern level 1 

roads or trails, or 300′ from the boundary of a recreation site or 

private land/communities) where whole tree logging occurs, 

machine piling may occur to the back of log landings. If 

conventional logging is used and trees are delimbed and topped in 

the forest, machine piled slash should be placed at least 300 feet 

away from the centerline of roads and trails, developed recreation 

sites, or private land/communities. In these instances, piles should 

be burned as soon as possible or within 3 years. Root wads and 

other debris in sensitive foreground areas would be removed, 

buried, burned, or chipped. If materials are buried, locate in 

previously disturbed areas where possible. Beyond sensitive 

immediate foreground areas, it is acceptable to scatter these or use 

them to help close temporary roads or skid trail. If slash is not 

removed in grassland treatment areas, it is acceptable to create 

machine piles 300 feet away from the centerline of sensitive roads 

and trails, developed recreation sites, and private 

land/communities, and place project-generated slash outside of 

permitted utility line and pipeline rights-of-way; do not interfere 

with utility corridor management.

RS5 Fire Control Lines: (1) Generally restore control lines to a near 

undisturbed condition in the foregrounds (within 300′) of sensitive 

roads, trails, and developed recreation sites), (2) To hasten 

recovery and help eliminate unauthorized motorized and 

nonmotorized use of control lines in these areas, use measures 

such as recontouring, pulling slash and rocks across the line, and 

disguising entrances, and (3) Do not use motorized equipment on 

national scenic, historic and recreation trails, or other forest 

system trails if these are used for control lines. Coordinate with 

the district recreation staff regarding use of national trails as 

control lines.

X X Compliance with forest plans.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

578 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

RS6 Coordinate with landscape architect prior to implementing 

jackstraw, spring, and road restoration treatments. Also see SW37 

and T8.

X X Maintain scenic integrity.

RS7 Recreation and Other Trail Mitigation: 

a) Recreation Sites

(i) Proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed fire 

adjacent to developed recreation sites must be reviewed and 

approved by the district ranger. Treatments may occur within 

Ten-X, Kaibab Lake and White Horse Lake Campgrounds. 

Work with the district recreation staff to determine boundaries 

or no treatment zones around constructed features that need to 

be protected in the campgrounds. Treatments around the 

perimeter of the campgrounds are encouraged. The timing of 

treatments must be worked out with districts. Treatment would 

generally occur in fall, winter, or spring. Activity slash must 

be piled in agreed upon locations, and treated as soon as 

possible. If campgrounds remain open into fall and winter, 

provide information about upcoming closures and 

management activities onsite, at FS offices, and FS Web sites.

(ii) Thinning and burning is appropriate at Garland Prairie 

Vista and Oakhill Snowplay Area, but constructed features 

must be protected from damage. Work with the district 

recreation staff to establish boundaries to protect constructed 

features.

(b) Provide public notice and information about treatment 

locations, timing, and the type of treatment occurring prior to and 

during vegetation and fire treatments.

(i) Consider use of a hotline or link on our Web pages that 

would indicate closures or hazards that may be encountered, 

also use media and make sure frontliners are well informed 

X X Compliance with forest plans, inform 

public, and reduce impacts to recreational 

opportunities.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 579

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

about activities occurring on the districts and forests.

(c) Place warning signs on all trail access points and along 

trails where treatment activities are occurring. It is also 

appropriate to place warning signs at developed recreation 

sites to inform visitors.

(d) When mechanical treatment and burning are occurring 

along open trails, slash will be pulled back immediately within 

100 feet of the centerline of the trail corridor. 

(e) If trails are temporarily closed due to harvesting, the trail 

tread will be cleared of all slash. 

(f) Character trees that have unique shape or form, and trees 

that define the trail corridor should be retained where feasible 

and should conform to the applicable prescription. Avoid lines 

of trees; strive to achieve a groupy appearance to avoid abrupt 

changes in the landscape character along the trail corridor.

(g) Implement road closures, one-way traffic, and area closure 

restrictions as deemed necessary by forest officials for health 

and safety concerns during any operation, and 

(h) Prohibit treatment activities in specifically designated units 

and the forest system roads associated with these units during 

times of highest recreation use. The highest recreation use and 

associated traffic occurs during the weeks of Federal observed 

Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day.

RS8 In Semiprimitive NonMotorized ROS classes specifically: (1) 

Temporary roads should not (generally) be built. If they are used, 

they would be restored to original conditions when projects are 

completed, (2) Strive to make stumps 6′′ or lower throughout the 

area, 12′′ stumps are the exception and rarely occur, (3) Slash must 

be treated or removed in these areas, and (4) Use existing barriers 

(roads) and natural barriers as control lines whenever possible.

X Compliance with forest plans.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

580 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

RS9 Cave and karst protection, see W40 X 

RS10 See SW21, SW37, W46, and W47 for additional fence mitigation. X 

Silviculture – See Appendix D, Implementation Plan

Soils and Watershed

SW1 Implement best management practices prior to project

implementation.

X Minimize impacts to soil and water 

resources from project implementation, to 

minimize nonpoint source pollution, to 

adhere to the Clean Water Act, and to 

adhere to the intergovernmental 

agreement between the Southwestern

Region of the Forest Service and the 

ADEQ.

SW2 Minimize mechanical operations when ground conditions are such 

that soil compaction can occur. All activities should be 

limited/restricted to when soils are dry or frozen. If compaction 

occurs, mitigate through ripping, seeding, and covering compacted 

areas with slash.

X Minimize soil compaction, soil 

detachment, and sediment transport. To 

maintain long term soil productivity.

SW3 All fueling of vehicles would be done on a designated protected, 

upland site. If more than 1,320 of gallons of petroleum products 

are to be stored onsite above ground or if a single container 

exceeds 660 gallons, then a spill prevention control and 

countermeasures plan (SPCC) would be prepared as per 40 CFR 

112.

X Prevent contamination of waters from 

accidental spills.

SW4 has 

more 

info than 

BMP 4 

The following applies to any personnel implementing grounddisturbing actions: Prior to moving off-road equipment onto a 

project area, contractor shall identify the location of the 

equipment’s most recent operation. Contractor shall not move any 

off-road equipment that last operated in an area infested with one 

X Minimize the spread of nonnative species.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 581

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

or more invasive species of concern onto the sale area without 

having cleaned such equipment of seeds, soil, vegetative matter, 

and other debris that could contain or hold seeds, and having 

notified the Forest Service, as provided in (iii). If the location of 

prior operation cannot be identified, then contractor shall assume 

that the location is infested with invasive species of concern. If the 

contractor has worked in areas where potential chytrid fungus 

could occur, contractor shall assume chytrid fungus is present and 

must disinfect equipment prior to work adjacent to water bodies.

(i – intentionally omitted)

(ii) Prior to moving off-road equipment from a cutting unit or 

cutting area that is shown on contract area or sale area map to be 

infested with invasive species of concern to, or through any other 

area that is shown as being free of invasive species of concern, or 

infested with a different invasive species, contractor shall clean 

such equipment of seeds, soil, vegetative matter, and other debris 

that could contain or hold seeds and/or disinfect as necessary, and 

shall notify the Forest Service, as provided in (iii). 

(iii) Prior to moving any off-road equipment subject to the 

cleaning and disinfecting requirements set forth above, contractor, 

shall advise the Forest Service of its cleaning measures and make 

the equipment available for inspection. Forest Service shall have 2 

days, excluding weekends and Federal holidays, to inspect 

equipment after it has been made available. After satisfactory 

inspection or after such 2-day period, contractor may move the 

equipment as planned. Equipment shall be considered clean when 

a visual inspection does not disclose seeds, soil, vegetative matter, 

and other debris that could contain or hold seeds. Contractor shall 

not be required to disassemble equipment unless so directed by the 

Forest Service after inspection.

(iv) If contractor desires to clean off-road equipment on national 

forest land, such as at the end of a project or prior to moving to, or 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

582 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

through an area that is free of invasive species of concern, 

contractor shall obtain prior approval from contracting officer as 

to the location for such cleaning and measures, if any, for 

controlling impacts. 

SW5 If construction crews are to live onsite, then an approved camp 

and suitable sanitation facilities must be provided.

X Protect surface and subsurface water from 

unacceptable levels of bacteria, nutrients, 

and chemical pollutants.

SW6 On areas to be prescribed burned, fire prescriptions should be 

designed to minimize soil temperatures over the entire area. High 

severity fire should occur on no more than 10 percent of the 

treatment area. Fire prescriptions should be designed so that soil 

and fuel moisture temperatures are such that fire severity is 

minimized and soil health and productivity are maintained. If 

containment lines are put in place, rehabilitate lines after use by 

either rolling berm back over the entire fire line, spreading slash 

across the fire line, or waterbarring the fire line. If line is only to 

be waterbarred, disguise the first 400′ of line to discourage use as 

a trail.

X X Maintain long term soil productivity and 

minimize sediment delivery from 

containment lines.

SW7 On areas to be prescribed burned, manage for 5–7 tons per acre of 

CWD in ponderosa pine to maintain long term soil productivity 

outside of the buffers around private land. Within the pinyonjuniper cover type, snags would be managed for one per acre over 

75 percent of the area and CWD would be managed for an aftertreatment average of 1–3 tons per acre (Huffman personal 

communication 2012). Where available, a portion of the CWD 

would include two logs ≥10′′ and ≥10′ in length.

X X Maintain long term soil productivity.

SW8 On areas to be prescribed burned, establish filter strips (also 

known as streamside management zones). These stream reaches 

would be designated as protected stream courses. The following 

are recommendations to protect stream courses.

X Minimize sediment and/or ash delivery 

into drainages and maintain water quality.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 583

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

Riparian stream course:

Severe erosion hazard: 120′ on each side of stream course.

Moderate erosion hazard: 100′ on each side of stream course.

Slight erosion hazard: 70′ on each side of stream course.

Nonriparian stream course: 

Severe erosion hazard: 100′ on each side of stream course.

Moderate erosion hazard: 70′ on each side of stream course.

Slight erosion hazard: 35′ on each side of stream course.

Do not ignite fuels within this buffer area. Some creep may occur 

into the buffer (also see SW31).

SW9 Complete all required permitting (404 permits) and water quality 

certification (if necessary) prior to project implementation.

X Comply with Clean Water Act provisions.

SW10 Site rehabilitation on upland sites for stream channel and road 

rehabilitation projects where ground disturbance occurs: seed at 5 

pounds per acre with native, certified weed-free seed mix. 

Potential vegetation for individual sites should utilize the Kaibab 

and Coconino NFs TES to identify species to be utilized. Where 

feasible, protect site with slash spread across the disturbed area to 

create microclimates and protect from grazing ungulates.

X X To minimize soil erosion and minimize 

noxious weed spread.

SW11 Site rehabilitation on upland sites for stream channel and road 

reconstruction projects where ground disturbance occurs: seed at 5 

pounds per acre with native, certified weed-free seed mix. 

Potential vegetation for individual sites should utilize the Kaibab 

and Coconino NFs TES to identify species to be utilized. Where 

feasible, protect site with slash spread across the disturbed area to 

create microclimates and protect from grazing ungulates.

X X To minimize soil erosion and minimize 

noxious weed spread and mitigate severe 

erosion hazard.

SW12 Site rehabilitation on riparian sites for stream channel and road 

reconstruction projects where ground disturbance occurs: seed at 5 

pounds per acre with certified weed-free native seed mix to 

X X To comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing soil 

erosion through the stabilizing influence 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

584 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

rehabilitate the site and minimize impacts of noxious weeds. 

Potential vegetation for individual sites should utilize the Kaibab 

and Coconino NFs TES to identify species to be utilized. Where 

feasible, protect site with a variety of methods (e.g., ungulate 

proof fence, spreading slash, etc.).

of vegetation ground cover. Minimize 

noxious weed spread.

SW13 Install silt fences and/or waddles downstream from grounddisturbing activities in stream channels to minimize the chance of 

sediment being lost downstream during construction and until 

revegetation is completed.

X Comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing soil 

erosion through the stabilizing influence 

of vegetation ground cover. Minimize 

noxious weed spread.

SW14 Provide site protection on newly disturbed soils (e.g., hydromulch,

erosion mat, spread slash etc.) in channel restoration and road 

reconstruction sites on all sites as needed and where feasible.

X To comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing sediment 

delivery to drainages, minimize impacts 

on severe erosion hazard soils, to create 

microclimate for regeneration of 

grass/forb community, and minimize 

noxious weed spread.

SW15 Bring rock material from a local upland site to any headcut drop 

structures that may be installed in channel restoration projects. 

X Minimize disturbance in drainage systems 

and minimize sediment production within 

channel.

SW16 Site rehabilitation on disturbed sites and stream channel shaping 

on previously obliterated roads: site rehabilitation consists of 

several revegetation methods, such as, but not limited to: (1) Store 

sod removed from the initial ground disturbance and replace the 

sod from the top of the bank on the disturbed site; (2) Seed with a 

native seed mix (see BMPs above); (3) Protect site with slash 

spread across the disturbed area to create microclimates and 

protect from grazing ungulates. Slash placement would be limited 

to the upper two-thirds of the bank to limit transport downstream 

of woody material; (4) Fence out ungulates for 1 to 2 years (or 

until the site has reestablished); (5) consider the use of mycorhizal 

X X Comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing soil 

erosion through the stabilizing influence 

of vegetation ground cover. Minimize 

noxious weed spread.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 585

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

inoculum on severely disturbed sites where no topsoil is left; and 

(6) install erosion mat.

SW17 Do not borrow road fill or embankment materials from the stream 

channel or meadow surface on road maintenance projects. Endload all material hauled onsite and compact fill.

X Minimize disturbance in drainage systems 

and minimize sediment production within 

channel.

SW18 Where feasible, relocate roads out of filter strips into an upland 

position. If this is not feasible, use riprap or velocity checks to 

stabilize or disperse outfall on road maintenance projects when 

roads are located within filter strips.

X Minimize sediment delivery into 

drainage, minimize disturbance in 

drainage systems, and minimize sediment 

production within channel.

SW19 At riparian stream reach restoration sites, restore riparian 

dependent grasses through (1) seeding of native species and (2) 

planting plugs of rushes, sedges, and spike rushes to improve 

success of regeneration efforts. Fence with ungulate proof fencing 

for 1 to 2 years (or until plants are established) if grazing is 

inhibiting regeneration efforts.

X Comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing soil 

erosion through stabilization of ground 

cover. Minimize noxious weed spread.

SW20 On areas that have had roads previously obliterated and the 

remaining roadbed will be removed, add slash/or erosion mat and 

seed to the disturbed areas.

X Add surface roughness a to comply with 

State and Federal water quality standards 

by minimizing soil erosion through 

stabilization of ground cover and to 

diminish the impact of the first rain event 

and to speed recovery of the site. 

SW21 At spring restoration sites, restore riparian dependent species 

through (1) seeding of native species and (2) planting 

plugs/cuttings of native plants to improve success of regeneration 

efforts. Fence with ungulate proof fencing for 1 to 2 years (or until 

plants are established) if grazing is inhibiting regeneration efforts.

See W46 and W47 for additional fence mitigation.

X Comply with State and Federal water 

quality standards by minimizing soil 

erosion through stabilization of ground 

cover. Minimize noxious weed spread.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

586 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

SW22 Do not blade roads when the road surface is too dry. If the road 

surface is too dry, a water truck can apply water or the project can 

be scheduled for when adequate moisture occurs to complete the 

project.

X Minimize sediment detachment and to 

minimize impacts on severe erosion soils.

SW23 In grassland restoration sites, limit skidding and designate skid 

trails if wood is to be removed. Where material is not to be 

removed, do not skid logs in meadows, and lop and scatter is the 

preferred method of treating slash. Do not machine pile within 

meadows. If skidding has to occur across a riparian or nonriparian 

stream course, designate any crossing prior to skidding.

X Minimize impacts to streams and soils in 

meadows from tree harvesting operations.

SW24 Skid trails and obliterated roads would have slash placed on the 

trail or cross-ditched (waterbarred) to break the energy flow of

water. Placing slash on skid trails is the preferred method to 

dissipate the energy flow of water. Waterbars are only to be 

implemented with equipment with an articulating blade (no 

skidders) or by hand.

X Minimize soil erosion and maintain soil 

productivity. Minimize impacts on severe 

erosion soils.

SW25 Landing locations will be in upland positions out of meadows and 

riparian and nonriparian filter strips.

X Minimize sediment delivery into drainage 

and minimize impacts on severe erosion 

soils.

SW26 Mechanical harvest or mechanical fuel treatment are only allowed 

on cinder cones greater than 25 percent slope with designated skid 

trails and slash mats placed on the skid trails. On other sites, 

mechanized harvesting can occur up to 40 percent slopes.

X - Coconino NF 

only

Maintain long term soil productivity on 

slopes with severe erosion hazard 

potential.

SW27 Designated skid trails and log landings would be required within 

the Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRCS) (BMP 24.18 in 

FSH 2509.22) on all cutting units. Skid trail design should not 

have long, straight skid trails that would direct waterflow. Skid 

trails should also be located out of filter strips (exceptions are at 

approved crossings).

X Minimize the number of acres disturbed 

and minimize impacts on severe erosion 

soils.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 587

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

SW28 Felling to the lead would be required within the IRSC to minimize 

ground disturbance from skidding operations (BMP 24.18). 

X Felling of timber should be done to 

minimize ground disturbance from 

skidding operations and to minimize 

impacts on severe erosion soils. 

SW29 The IRSC outlines the timing and application of erosion control 

methods to minimize soil loss and sedimentation of stream

courses. Seed mix can include any of the following certified weedfree native species at a minimum of 5 pounds per acre pure live 

seed. Potential vegetation for individual sites should utilize the 

Kaibab and Coconino NFs’ TES to identify species to be utilized. 

Corresponding BMPs from FSH 2509.22 to minimize soil loss and 

sedimentation include 24.13, 24.21, 24.22, 24.23, 24.24, and 

24.25. The preferred erosion control method on the skid trails in 

the harvest areas would be by spreading slash. Other acceptable 

erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, 

waterbarring (waterbars should not be more than 2′ deep and need 

at least a 10′ leadout). Waterbars are only to be implemented with 

equipment with an articulating blade (no skidders) or by hand to 

remove berms, seed, mulch, and cross-rip. Erosion control after

skidding operations must be timely to minimize the effects of log 

skidding.

X Minimize soil loss and sedimentation of 

stream courses from skidding operations. 

Minimize noxious weed spread and 

reestablish native vegetation. Minimize 

impacts on severe erosion soils.

SW30 Road drainage is controlled by a variety of methods (BMP 41.14) 

including rolling the grade, insloping, outsloping, crowning, water 

spreading ditches, and contour trenching. Sediment loads at 

drainage structures can be reduced by installing sediment filters, 

rock and vegetative energy dissipaters, and settling ponds. Design 

of roads is included in the transportation plan of the IRSC and Tspecs.

X Minimize soil movement, maintain water 

quality, and minimize impacts on severe 

erosion soils.

SW31 Road maintenance (BMP 41.25) through the IRSC should require 

pre-haul and post-haul maintenance on all roads to be used for 

haul.

X To minimize soil movement, maintain 

water quality, and to minimize impacts on 

severe erosion soils.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

588 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

SW32 The designation of filter strips (also known as streamside

management zones) minimizes onsite soil movement from timber 

harvest activities along stream courses (BMP 24.16). These stream 

reaches will be designated as protected stream courses.

Locations of protected stream courses are included in the 

individual task order maps and will be designated with a protected 

stream course designation. The following are recommendations to 

protect stream courses within the proposed tree harvest units in 

relation to riparian and nonriparian stream courses. The guidelines 

for filter strip designation are as follows:

Riparian stream course: 

Severe erosion hazard: 120′ on each side of stream course.

Moderate erosion hazard: 100′ on each side of stream course.

Slight erosion hazard: 70′ on each side of stream course. 

Nonriparian stream course: 

Severe erosion hazard: 100′ on each side of stream course.

Moderate erosion hazard: 70′ on each side of stream course.

Slight erosion hazard: 35′ on each side of stream course.

Accepted harvest activities within riparian and nonriparian filter 

strips include mechanical and conventional tree felling and limited 

skidding on designated skid trails and not across stream courses. 

Landings, decking areas, machine piles, and roads (except at 

designated crossings) are planned outside of riparian and 

nonriparian filter strips.

X Filter sediment and/or providing bank 

stability on all stream courses and to 

minimize impacts on severe erosion soils. 

To implement the Oak Creek E. Coli 

TMDL and Lake Mary Region Mercury 

TMDL and to filter sediment and/or 

provide bank stability. 

SW33 Manage for 5–7 tons of CWD per acre in ponderosa pine. X Promote long term soil productivity.

SW34 Mechanical crushing of lopped slash can only occur on 0–25 

percent slopes.

X Incorporate slash into the soil to promote 

long term soil productivity.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 589

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

SW35 Identify landings, staging area for heavy equipment, and sites for 

any in-woods processing sites outside of filter strips and meadows. 

Sites would be rehabilitated after use by methods such as, but not 

limited to: (1) ripping to remove compaction, (2) seeding with 

certified weed-free native seed to 5 pounds per acre. Potential 

vegetation for individual sites should utilize the Kaibab and 

Coconino NFs’ TES to identify species to be utilized, and (3) 

spreading of slash to disguise the site and provide for a mulch for 

seeds.

X Minimize and mitigate impacts from 

activities that compact sites, restore long 

term soil productivity, and minimize 

impacts on severe erosion soils.

SW36 The TSC outlines the timing and application of erosion control 

methods in BT6.31, BT6.6, BT6.63, BT6.64, BT6.65, CT6.6, 

CT6.601, and CT6.602 to minimize soil loss and sedimentation of 

stream courses. Seed mix can include any of the following 

certified weed-free native species at a minimum of 5 pounds per 

acre pure live seed:

• Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) 

• Screwleaf muhly (Muhlenbergia virescens) 

• Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 

• Mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) 

• Purple geranium (Geranium caespitosum) 

• Western yarrow (Achillea millefollium) 

• Pussytoes (Antennaria marginata) 

• Arizona peavine (Lathyrus arizonicus) 

• Fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida) 

The seed mix can contain a mixture of all or some of these 

suggested species, but should not contain all of these species and 

should include at least one grass species. The seed mix depends on 

the availability of these species.

Corresponding BMPs to minimize soil loss and sedimentation of 

streamcourses include 24.13, 24.21, 24.22, 24.23, 24.24, and 

Minimize soil loss and sedimentation of 

stream courses from skidding operations. 

Minimize noxious weed spread and 

reestablish native vegetation.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

590 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

24.25. Erosion control on the skid trails in the harvest areas would 

be by spreading slash. Other acceptable erosion control measures 

include, but are not limited to, waterbarring (waterbars should not 

be more than 2′ deep and need at least a 10′ leadout). Waterbars 

are only to be implemented with equipment with an articulating 

blade (no skidders) or by hand. Erosion control after skidding 

operations must be timely to minimize the effects of log skidding.

SW37 For spring restoration actions, no decking or piling of material 

within 100′ of spring source or outflow would occur. Protect 

Bebb’s willow from prescribed burn (if it occurs). Design any 

fencing to minimize impacts to wildlife (including avian species) 

and provide bats and other desirable wildlife passage; mitigate any 

cultural resource concerns through avoidance of sites; prevent the 

spread of noxious weeds through any management activities by 

prescribing equipment cleaning; prevent chytrid fungus spread at 

spring sites by prescribing chytrid prevention methodologies. 

Work with landscape architect to design structures that reduce 

impacts to scenic quality. See W42, W43, W46, and W47 for 

additional fence mitigation.

X X Minimize and mitigate impacts from 

activities. 

Transportation 

T1 Utilize accepted engineering practices and manual direction for 

maintenance and reconstruction practices.

X Maintain a safe and economic road 

system.

T2 Coordinate any road use in association with the El Paso and 

Transwestern High-Pressure Natural Gas pipelines. Hauling can 

occur at designated crossings with sufficient pad material. No 

hauling is proposed down these gas pipelines on Forest Roads 160, 

796, 6796, 09007P, 09008P, 09228D, 09229Y, and 09231Q.

X Prevent damage to high-pressure gas 

pipelines.

T3 On areas to be prescribed burned, if decommissioned roads are to 

be used as fire lines, return decommissioned roads to that 

condition post-burning. Rehabilitation of the surface should refer 

Discourage use on previously 

decommissioned roads and maintain a 

safe and economic road system.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 591

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

to the soil and water BMPs for rehabilitation of fire lines and 

disturbed areas.

T4 Utilize road safety signage with any project road activities that are 

related to project implementation.

Provide for user safety.

T5 See SW22

T6 Utilize the closest material source that has the specified material 

type for all road maintenance/reconstruction/relocation to projects.

Minimize energy use for road 

maintenance/reconstruction/relocation 

activities.

T7 Road maintenance through the timber sale contract or stewardship 

contract should require pre-haul and post-haul maintenance on all 

roads to be used for haul.

Provide for a safe travel surface and 

provide for access to the project area.

T8 Utilize mitigation measures for soil and water, recreation, cultural 

resources, timber/silviculture, wildlife and botany/noxious weeds 

in project design to minimize resource impacts from the 

transportation system. Work with landscape architect to design 

structures that reduce impacts to scenic quality.

Minimize resource impacts from the 

transportation system.

Wildlife

W1 Bald eagle winter concentration areas, retain the tallest snags >18′′

d.b.h. 

X Bald eagle winter concentration areas.

W2 No vegetation treatments would occur within a buffer up to 1⁄2 mile 

(2,500 ft.), unless mitigated by topography, of an occupied bald or 

golden eagle nest between March 1 and August 31 (there are 3 

bald eagle nests and 19 golden eagle nests within a 1⁄2 mile of the 

project analysis area). Other project activities will be assessed by 

the district biologist and limited activities may be acceptable.

X Bald or golden eagle nests.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

592 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W3 No mechanical treatments would occur within a 300′ radius of 

bald eagle nest trees (there are three bald eagle nests within 300′ of 

the project boundary).

X Bald eagle nest trees.

W4 No project activities would occur within 500′ of confirmed bald 

eagle communal roosts from October 15–April 15. There are 

currently 19 confirmed roosts in the project area.

X Bald eagle communal roost sites.

W5 Raptor nests located during project surveys would be monitored 

prior to project activities. Known nest trees for any raptor species 

would be prepped prior to prescribed burning. Buffers will be 

provided if nests are active.

X Raptor nests.

W6 Burn plans within subunits 1-1, 1-3, 3-5, and 5-2 would be 

coordinated with the district wildlife biologist to insure nesting 

eagles will not be adversely impacted from smoke. 

X Bald and gold eagle nest sites.

W7 Forest plan direction would be followed for buffers surrounding 

raptor nests. Currently, that includes a no mechanical treatment 

buffer of 10 acres around occupied sharp-shinned hawk nests.

X Sharp-shinned hawk nests.

W8 Forest plan direction would be followed for buffers surrounding 

raptor nests. Currently, that includes a no mechanical treatment 

buffer of 15 acres around occupied Cooper’s hawk nests.

X Cooper’s hawk.

W9 Forest plan direction would be followed for buffers surrounding 

raptor nests. Currently, that includes a no mechanical treatment 

buffer of 20 acres around osprey nest sites (occupied or 

unoccupied). Use site specific analysis to determine no-treatment 

zone around nest site and all logging activities will be restricted 

within 1⁄4 mile of active nests from March 1–August 15.

X Osprey.

W10 Forest plan direction would be followed for buffers surrounding 

raptor nests. Currently, that includes a 50′ no-treatment buffer 

around other occupied raptors nests.

X Other raptors.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 593

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W11 Great blue herons – no dominant or codominant trees would be cut 

in rookeries. Known sites would be prepped prior to prescribed 

burning, fire can enter roosts but do not ignite within roost stands. 

Timing would avoid mechanical tree harvest while birds are in the 

nest. Activities will be coordinated with the local biologist.

X Great blue heron.

W12 See appendix D, sections A-B, for MSO habitat design features. X 

W13 MSO surveys in the project area the year of implementation or 1 

year prior to determine if new areas are occupied by owls.

X MSO restricted and protected habitat.

W14 Pre- and post-treatment habitat monitoring would occur as 

specified in the MSO recovery plan.

X MSO restricted and protected habitat.

W15 Spring restoration inside PACs would not occur during the 

breeding season (March 1–August 31) if occupied in Rocktop, 

Sawmill Spring, Red Raspberry, and Weimer Spring PACs (i.e., 4 

out of 78 proposed spring restoration sites).

X MSO protected activity centers.

W16 Ephemeral stream restoration would not occur inside PACs during 

the breeding season (March 1–August 31) if occupied in Bear 

Seep, Clark, Holdup, Coulter Ridge, and Meadow Tank MSO 

PACs.

X MSO protected activity centers.

W17 Road construction, obliteration, relocation, and maintenance 

would not occur inside PACs during the breeding season (March 

1–August 31) if occupied.

X MSO protected activity centers.

W18 No treatments would occur in PACs within a 1⁄4 mile of core area 

(potentially adjusted by topography) during the breeding season 

(March 1–August 31) if occupied.

X MSO protected activity centers.

W19 Hauling would not occur within PACs during the breeding season 

(March 1–August 31) except where specific analysis has 

documented that impacts would not lead to adverse effects.

X MSO protected activity centers.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

594 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W20 No new wire fencing would be constructed in PACs. Other 

alternatives would be used for aspen, seep, spring, and ephemeral 

drainage restoration exclosures. Alternatives would be coordinated 

with other specialists. If suitable alternatives cannot be identified, 

restoration work would be postponed.

X MSO protected activity centers.

W21 Coordinate burning spatially and temporally to limit smoke 

impacts to nesting owls, particularly for PACs with nests in draws 

and canyons (effective March 1–August 31).

X MSO protected activity centers.

W22 Fire line associated with preventing fire from entering PACs 

and/or core areas would be constructed outside the nesting season 

(alternatives B and C). 

X MSO protected activity centers.

W23 Implementation would be phased in across the landscape so that 

not all MSO Habitat would be treated in 1 year. 

X MSO habitat.

W24 Prescribed burn plans would be designed and implemented to 

minimize smoke impacts to nesting birds and minimize loss of 

nest trees.

X Goshawk nest stands.

W25 Not all harvest activities would occur in occupied PFAs during the 

breeding season. However, work could potentially occur on a 

case-by-case basis through coordination with the district biologist 

if pre-treatment surveys determine they are not occupied.

X Goshawk PFAs.

W26 Spring and ephemeral drainage restoration projects would not 

occur in the Barney Spring, Tree Spring, Schultz Pass, Squaw, 

Marteen, Coxcombs, Pumphouse, Walnut, Faye, Marshall Mesa, 

Newman, Cherry Canyon, and Monument 36 PFAs during the 

breeding season (March 1–September 30) if occupied. However, 

work could potentially occur on a case-by-case basis through 

coordination with the district biologist if pre-treatment surveys 

have determined they are not occupied or impacts will not affect 

nesting birds.

X Goshawk PFAs.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 595

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W27 Logging trucks would not exceed 25 m.p.h. when traveling 

through PFAs during the nesting season (March 1–September 30).

X Goshawk PFAs.

W28 Road construction, obliteration, relocation, and maintenance 

would not occur inside PFAs during the breeding season (March 

1– September 30) if occupied.

X Goshawk PFAs.

W29 Because of declining trends in populations, defer logging activities 

between May 15 and August 31 in fawning habitat as identified by 

the ADGF. 

X Deer habitat.

W30 Avoid thinning and burning within the known pronghorn 

travelway on the Williams RD during the first major snowfall of a 

given year to allow for seasonal migration.

X Pronghorn habitat.

W31 Do not create interspaces and openings where hiding cover exists 

near dependable waters identified by the ADGF (e.g., stock tanks, 

lakes, and riparian stream reaches) and through implementation of 

watershed BMPs.

X General.

W32 Protect snags and logs wherever possible through site prep, 

implementation planning, and ignition techniques to retain snags 

>18′′ d.b.h. and ≥ three logs with >12′′ mid-point diameter. Do not 

directly ignite snags. In general, manage for 5 to 7 tons of CWD 

and at least three logs per acre except in areas with identified WUI 

treatments.

X General.

W33 Protect snags and logs wherever possible by placing landings in 

existing openings or in areas where snags and/or logs and old trees 

would be minimally impacted.

X General.

W34 Retain trees with dead tops, cavities, and lightning strikes 

wherever possible to provide cavity nesting/foraging habitat (i.e.,

the living dead).

X General.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

596 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W35 Emphasize retention of snags exhibiting loose bark to provide 

habitat for roosting bats.

X Bat habitat.

W36 No thinning or direct ignition within 1⁄4-mile distance from tanks 

or designated along logical topographic breaks. (See the wildlife 

report for a list of location/sites within 1⁄4-mile buffers). The 

district wildlife biologist may work with implementation teams to 

determine the habitat protection buffer boundary.

X Northern leopard frog designated 

occupied/ critical breeding sites (six 

sites).

W37 Seasonal restrictions (April 15–September 15) for all proposed 

activities would be implemented within a 200′ buffer (or along 

logical topographic breaks) at all designated important water sites 

(i.e., 10 sites in RU 1) (see wildlife report for a list of locations 

and sites). The district wildlife biologist may work with 

implementation teams to determine the habitat protection buffer 

boundary.

X Northern leopard frog potential breeding 

sites.

W38 In subunits 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6, a 200′ protection zone (100′

either side of the stream) would be established around designated 

stream courses (see northern leopard frog travel linkage zone in 

within subunits 1-2, 1-4 and 1-5 in wildlife report for more 

details). There would be no thinning and no direct ignition of 

prescribed burning within the protection zones. Designated skid 

trail crossings through the buffer zone are allowed. Fall burning 

and burn plans should be coordinated with district wildlife 

biologists.

X Northern leopard frog dispersal habitat.

W39 Mechanized equipment would avoid wetted soils in northern 

leopard frog habitat unless decontamination practices for Chytrid 

are employed first.

X Northern leopard frog designated, 

potential, and dispersal habitat.

W40 A 300′ no mechanical treatment buffer would be designated 

around cave entrances and sink hole rims (i.e., karst) to protect 

cave ecosystems from siltation, protect human health and safety, 

and reduce potential disturbance to roosting bats. Existing roads 

X Protect bat habitat: caves, karst, and sink 

holes.
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 597

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

could be used for mechanical harvest but no new skid trails would 

be created. The intent is to avoid changing the cave/karst 

microclimate, (including altering vegetation near the inside and 

outside of the entrance/rim) and hydrology while reducing surface 

fuels. Ignition and other prescribed fire techniques would maintain 

existing vegetation patterns and forest plan guidance for snags and 

logs while reducing fuel loads and protecting cave and karst 

ecosystems from post-treatment sediment deposition.

W41 Prairie dog surveys would be completed prior to mechanical 

treatment in documented prairie dog towns within treatment areas 

to determine if towns are active. If active towns form a large 

enough complex to support ferrets, black-footed ferret surveys 

would be completed prior to implementation within prairie dog 

towns. Coordinate with local biologists. 

ESA Black footed ferret; prairie dog towns.

W42 Attach bird flight diverters (as provided by ADGF) to exclosure 

fencing around springs, channels, and aspen stands to avoid 

wildlife collisions.

X General.

W43 Avoid fence (i.e., exclosure) construction in PACs and PFAs 

during the respective breeding seasons (March 1–August 31 and 

March 1–September 30).

X General.

W44 All stands included in the proposed mechanical treatments for 18 

MSO PACs would be marked for harvest by hand and marking 

would be coordinated with the FWS.

X 

W45 In MSO restricted and protected habitat, trees greater than 24” 

would not be cut.

X 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

598 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W46 Fences should be designed, modified, or removed to minimize 

impacts on wildlife movement. For example, road right-of-way 

fences should be located 1/8 mile from roads, and lay-down 

fences, etc., should be designed to minimize restriction to 

pronghorn movement.

X Provides consistency with draft Coconino 

NF forest plan. 

W47 Construction of additional fences should be minimal. Fence 

maintenance should be prioritized in threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species habitat and important movement corridors, and 

should occur as needed. Fences that are no longer needed should 

be removed.

X Provides consistency with draft Coconino 

NF forest plan. 

W48 “Snags would be managed for at least two per acre ≥18 inches, 

CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons per acre, and downed logs 

would be managed for at least three per acre ≥12 inches.”

X Provides consistency forest plans. 

W49 Contractors will be advised of the possibility of California condors 

in the project area. Should a condor land near project activities, 

contractors will be instructed not to haze condors.

X The mitigation measures (W-51 to W-55) 

for condor were developed and 

recommended by the Arizona condor 

working group. Although not specifically 

written as presented, the measures meet 

the intent in the Coconino and Kaibab 

NFs forest plans of recovering listed 

species.

W50 All contractors would be instructed to avoid interacting with 

condors and to immediately contact the appropriate FS personnel 

if occurs in the project area. Sighting locations will be forwarded 

to the Peregrine Fund and the FWS. 

X 

W51 Any project activity that may cause imminent harm to condors 

will temporarily cease until permitted personnel determine the 

correct course of action.

X 
Appendix C – Design Features, BMPs, and Mitigation

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 599

Design 

Criteria 

No.

Description

Purpose

Comment or Purpose Forest Plan 

Compliance

Specialist 

Recommendation

W52 Project-related work areas will be kept clean (e.g., trash disposed 

of, scrap materials picked-up, etc.) in order to minimize the 

possibility of condors accessing inappropriate materials. The FS 

will complete site visits to ensure cleanup is adequate.

X 

W53 A hazardous material spill plan will be developed and 

implemented with details on how each hazardous substance will 

be treated in case of leaks or spills.

X 

W54 Pesticide use will follow the guidelines for California condors as 

described in the April 2007 Recommended Protection Measures 

for Pesticide Applications in Region 2 of the FWS.

X 

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 601

Appendix D – Alternative B 

Through D Implementation Plan

The environmental impact statement (EIS) describes the purpose and need, alternatives and the 

effects of managing the 4FRI project area. This implementation plan is designed to be integral to 

the selected alternative and record of decision (ROD). The process described in this appendix 

describes the linkage from the EIS to the project specific work without the need for additional 

NEPA analysis. It must be considered in conjunction with appendix C that provides the design 

criteria, best management practices, and mitigation measures. Table 112 to table 115 are 

checklists designed to ensure compliance with the analysis, decision, and other requirements. 

Essentially, if the quantity of treatments in table 112 and table 113 by resource unit are within the 

bounds of the treatments analyzed in chapter 3 of the EIS and the specialist’s reports, then the 

program of work is considered to be consistent with the effects analysis.

Table 114 and table 115 show the compliance evaluation and documentation requirements to also 

demonstrate this compliance. Sections A through E provide direction that would be used by 

implementation personnel to ensure that implementation meets the purpose and need and forest 

plan standards and guidelines. It is the foundation for the formal silvicultural prescriptions. The 

silvicultural prescriptions will document the desired conditions presented in the analysis, 

incorporate design features and mitigation (appendix C), and provide the course of action needed 

to move toward those desired conditions.

Description of Plan Components

Table 112: Annual Implementation Checklist. The checklist is designed to track compliance 

with the NEPA decision and ensure activities are consistent and compliant with the analysis and 

decision (correct location, appropriate number of acres by treatment type). The checklist is 

designed to be used by the implementation team leader. Sources of data to populate row three are 

found in chapter 3 and the specialists reports.

Table 113: Planned Acres by Treatment Type and Restoration Unit (RU). The checklist is 

designed to facilitate accomplishment reporting. The checklist is designed to be used (at a 

minimum) by the implementation team leader and forest program managers. Sources of data to 

populate row three are found in chapter 3 and the specialists reports.

Table 114: NEPA, NFMA, ESA, CFLR Act Compliance Evaluation. The checklist is designed 

to ensure resource surveys are completed as required by the forest plan, policy, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) biological opinion, Comprehensive Forest Landscape Restoration Act

(CFLR), or other requirements. The checklist also ensures that the site-specific treatments are 

compliant with the NEPA analysis and decision. The checklist is designed to be used by the 

resource specialists who comprise the implementation team and by the Agency’s (delegated) 

approving official. 

Table 115: Supporting Documentation. This checklist is designed to ensure required plans and 

surveys are tracked annually and are readily accessible to the implementation team and approving 

official. It will be used in combination with appendix E that shows the adaptive management 

strategy.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

602 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Section A: This section includes existing forest plan management direction, desired conditions, 

and treatment specific silvicultural design. It is designed to be used by the project silviculturist 

and implementation team.

Section B: Section B is a decision matrix to be used by the project silviculturist and 

implementation team to facilitate establishing tree groups, interspace, and regeneration openings 

as appropriate for each individual treatment. 

Section C: This section provides old tree descriptions, illustrations, and guidance used to 

implement the old tree implementation plan.

Section D: Section D includes guidance and the “Modified Large Tree Implementation Plan”. 

The guidance is designed to be reviewed by the project’s silviculturist during development of 

prescriptions and during implementation. Section D only applies to alternative C. 

Section E: Section E describes the relationship between treatment intensity, tree group density, 

and overall average density. It includes density management and stocking guidelines. It is 

designed to be used by the project silviculturist (in the design of prescriptions) and 

implementation team.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 603

Table 112. Annual implementation checklist

Implementation Checklist Details

Project name:

Project location (legal):

Summary of activities proposed in this phase: 

Is the project located within the project 

boundary displayed in the FEIS/ROD?

Identify the restoration unit (RU) in which the 

project phase is located based on the 

FEIS/ROD.

RU1 RU3 RU4 RU5 RU6

(1) How many acres have been treated by RU 

since the ROD was signed?

(2) How many remaining acres are available for 

treatment by RU over the lifetime of the 

decision? (1–2) 

(3) How total many acres will this project (or 

task order) treat by RU?

(4) Are the acres to be treated by RU less than 

remaining acres available for treatment? (3–4)

Are acres proposed for treatment by RU within 

the limits approved by the decision?

Yes_____________ No_______________
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

604 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 113. Planned acres by treatment type and restoration unit (RU) 

Acre/Miles by Treatment Type to 

be Implemented in this Phase RU1 RU3 RU4 RU5 RU6

Aspen

Prescribed Fire Only 

ADGF Research

Grassland Restoration 

Grassland Mechanical

Intermediate Thin (IT) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Intermediate Thin (IT) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace)

Intermediate Thin (IT) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

MSO Threshold 

MSO Target

MSO Restricted

MSO PAC 

MSO PAC Grassland Mechanical

Pine-sage
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 605

Acre/Miles by Treatment Type to 

be Implemented in this Phase RU1 RU3 RU4 RU5 RU6

Savanna (70 to 90% interspace)

Stand Improvement (SI) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Stand Improvement (SI) 25

(25 to 40% interspace)

Stand Improvement (SI) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

Uneven-aged (UEA) 10 

(10 to 25% interspace)

Uneven-aged (UEA) 25 

(25 to 40% interspace) 

Uneven-aged (UEA) 40 

(40 to 55% interspace) 

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Pinyonjuniper 

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) 55

Pile Burning

Broadcast Burning

Jackpot Burning

Fire Line Construction
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

606 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Acre/Miles by Treatment Type to 

be Implemented in this Phase RU1 RU3 RU4 RU5 RU6

Existing System and Unauthorized Road 

Decommission

Temporary Road Construction

Temporary Road Decommission

Road Reconstruction/Relocation

Springs Remove Trees to Presettlement Condition 

Remove Noxious Weeds

Prescribed Fire

Protective Measures

Ephemeral 

Channels

Reestablish Drainage, 

Slopes, Vegetation

Site Protection

Remove or Rehab Stock 

Tanks

Other

Construct Protective Fencing: 

Springs/Aspen

Are acres proposed for treatments in this 

phase within the limits authorized in the 

decision?

Yes_____________ No_______________
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 607

Table 114. NEPA, NFMA, ESA, CFLR Act compliance evaluation

Compliance Evaluation Yes No Not Applicable

Is the project within the maximum treatment acres identified in the NEPA decision?

Is treatment design consistent with desired conditions, design criteria, and mitigation?

Are wildlife and botanical surveys, if necessary, complete? Is the action consistent with the FWS biological opinion 

dated__________?

Are heritage surveys complete? Is the action consistent with the letter of concurrence form the AZ SHPO dated________?

Have contacts with tribal representatives been made?

Are rights-of-way and land line locations in place (if applicable)?

Are treatments consistent with the Old Tree Implementation Plan (Section C)

Has the monitoring and adaptive management plan been evaluated to document compliance with law, regulation, policy, and 

forest plans? 

Have additional implementation and effectiveness monitoring needs been identified?

As required by CFLR Act, is multiparty monitoring underway?

Are adaptive management actions being proposed? If so, clearly analyzed and covered by the decision made?

Has the administrator checklist been completed and signed by the appropriate resource specialists?

Is the treatment (burn) plan completed and signed?

• Objectives have been developed in interdisciplinary manner and are clearly delineated?

• Objectives are consistent with management direction?

• Objectives match those described for RU in NEPA analysis?

Complexity rating______

Do conditions match those described in NEPA analysis? Examples where conditions have changed:

New listed species in project area; New invasive species in project area; Change in regulations

Burn/treatment plan doesn’t allow implementing design criteria

YES___

___

NO____

___

Have issues identified in the NEPA analysis been reviewed?

Has a post-implementation review been completed (may be filled out after approval)?

Alternative C Only: Are treatments consistent with Large Tree Implementation Plan? (Section D)
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

608 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 115. Supporting documentation checklist

Document Name Attached?

Y/N

Silviculture Prescriptions

Burn Plan

Transportation Safety Plan

Wildlife Surveys

Botany Surveys

Archaeological Surveys

Monitoring Results
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 609

Project Resource Specialist Review 

Based on my review, the project is consistent with the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests 

final environmental impact statement and record of decision (FEIS/ROD) implementing the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs restoration project. 

Name/Signature Date Resource Area

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife

Botany

Range

Recreation

Scenery

Archaeology and Tribal Relations

Fire 

Air Quality/Smoke

Lands

Soils and Hydrology

Silviculture

Planning/NEPA

Transportation

Public Affairs

Approving Official

I have reviewed the activities proposed for this year. Based on my review, the project is 

consistent with the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests final environmental impact statement 

and record of decision implementing the Coconino and Kaibab NFs restoration project. 

_____________________________________________________ ___________________ 

Agency Approving Official, Title Date

ATTACHMENTS: (add to as necessary)
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

610 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Section A – Management Direction, 

Desired Conditions, and Treatment Design

MSO Habitat

Protected Activity Center (PAC)

Vegetation Management Direction: Retain key forest species such as oak; retain key habitat 

components such as snags and large down logs; harvest conifers less than 9 inches in diameter 

only within those PACs treated to abate fire risk and avoid treatment in 100-acre nest cores as 

described in the MSO recovery plan. Further 4FRI guidelines include the primary objective of 

improving MSO habitat when mechanically treating PACs potentially cutting trees greater than 9-

inch d.b.h. 

Desired Conditions: Table III.B.1 (USDI 1995) lists guidance for minimum desired structural 

elements within PACs. This includes 150 square feet of basal area (BA), 30 percent or more of 

the SDI in ponderosa pine trees ≥18-inch d.b.h., 15 percent or more of the stand density index in 

ponderosa pine trees between 12- and 18-inch d.b.h., ≥20 trees per acre ≥18-inch d.b.h., and ≥20 

Gambel oak BA. Other key habitat components includes snags 18 inches plus, down logs >12-

inch midpoint diameter, hardwoods, and an understory vegetation layer that includes shrubs and 

herbaceous species.

PAC Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Each PAC has 100-acre no treatment area around the known nest or roost sites. 

Outside the 100-acre no treatment area, trees may be thinned and/or prescribed burns may be used 

to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where feasible.

Each PAC to be thinned would have an upper diameter limit of trees that may be cut. All trees 

above that limit would be retained. 

Intermediate thinning would be used to increase residual tree health and vigor and reduce fire 

hazard. 

Manage for 150 square feet of BA where present or to attain 150 square feet of BA in areas with 

site potential capable of sustaining high tree density in alternatives B and D. In alternative C, 

manage for a minimum of 110 square feet of BA where present or to attain 150 square feet of BA 

in areas with site potential capable of sustaining high tree density.

Manage for irregular tree spacing to create canopy gaps and other structural conditions that would 

be conducive to low intensity prescribed fire treatment.

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to the treatment diameter limit that do 

not meet the old tree definition and whose crowns are outside the old tree crown drip line (1) 

within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown positions and (2) that 

would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the old tree. 

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch diameter at root collar 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 611

(drc) or larger as follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-

inch d.b.h. and (2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate 

or suppressed crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that 

meet the old tree definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species will not be cut as part of the treatments. These species 

may only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trails and 

landings).

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height and reducing litter/duff cover and other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO PAC habitat forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

PAC Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height and reduce litter/duff cover and 

other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO PAC habitat forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Steep Slopes

Vegetation Management Direction: Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk. Use 

combinations of thinning trees less than 9 inches in diameter, mechanical fuel removal, and 

prescribed fire; retain woody debris larger than 12 inches in diameter, snags, clumps of broadleafed woody vegetation, and hardwood trees larger than 10-inch drc. 

Desired Conditions: Table III.B.1 (USDI 1995) lists structural elements. Other key habitat 

components includes snags 18 inches plus, down logs >12-inch midpoint diameter, hardwoods, 

and an understory vegetation layer that includes shrubs and herbaceous species.

Steep Slopes Burn Only Treatment Design 

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height and reduce litter/duff cover and 

other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO protected forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

612 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Restricted Habitat (Table 116) 

Definition: Pine-oak – ponderosa pine habitat type series; within the Gambel oak or Gambel oak 

phase of the habitat type; ≥10 percent of the stand BA or 10 square feet per acre of BA consists 

of Gambel oak ≥5 inches drc.

General Vegetation Management Direction: Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl 

nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape. Habitat variables are documented in table 

III.B.1 of the MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012). Management would attempt to mimic natural 

disturbance patterns by incorporating natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various 

patch sizes. Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus producing horizontal variation in 

stand structure. Emphasize uneven-aged management systems. Both even-aged and uneven-aged 

systems may be used where appropriate to provide variation in existing stand structure and 

species diversity. Save all trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h. Retain existing large oaks and promote 

growth of additional large oaks. Encourage prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuel accumulation. 

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat components (snags 18 inches plus, down logs >12-inch 

midpoint diameter, and hardwoods). 

Table 116. MSO restricted habitat target/threshold conditions for pine-oak forests

Threshold Habitat

Vegetation Management Direction: Stand averages currently meet or exceed threshold values in 

table III.B.1 of the MSO recovery plan. Management would not reduce variables below the 

threshold values. 

Desired Conditions: Irregular tree spacing and various patch size. Horizontal variation in stand 

structure. Other key habitat components includes snags 18 inches plus, down logs >12-inch 

midpoint diameter, and hardwoods. 

Threshold Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Intermediate thinning would be used to increase residual tree health and vigor and reduce fire 

hazard. 

Manage for ≥150 square feet of BA where present, with a portion of those acres ≥170 square feet 

of BA in alternatives B and D. In alternative C, manage for a minimum 110 square feet of BA and 

Stand Averages

BA ≥150 BA

18-inch + trees/acre (TPA) ≥20

Oak BA (square feet) ≥20 BA

Percent Total Existing SDI by Size Class

12–18′′ ≥15

18–24′′ ≥15

24+′′ ≥15
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 613

manage for ≥ 150 square feet of BA where present in areas with site potential capable of 

sustaining high tree density.

Manage to attain 150 square feet of BA in areas with site potential capable of sustaining high tree 

density in all alternatives.

Manage for irregular tree spacing to create canopy gaps and other structural conditions that would 

be conducive to low intensity prescribed fire treatment.

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. that do not meet the old 

tree definition and whose crowns are outside the old tree crown drip line (1) within a 50-foot 

radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown positions and (2) that would eliminate 

direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the old tree. 

No trees larger than 24-inch d.b.h. would be cut. 

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch drc or larger as follows:

(1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and (2) On the 

northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species will not be cut as part of the treatments. These species 

may only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trails and 

landings).

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches and at least 30 feet in height, CWD would 

be managed for 5 to 7 tons per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 

inches and a minimum of 8 feet in length. 

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height and reducing litter/duff cover and other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted threshold habitat 

forest structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Threshold Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height and reduce litter/duff cover and 

other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted threshold habitat 

forest structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

614 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Target

Vegetation Management Direction: Stand averages currently meet or exceed some threshold 

values in table III.B.1 of the MSO recovery plan. Management would not reduce variables that 

are currently at or above the threshold value below the threshold values. Management would 

encourage development of threshold values that are lacking.

Desired Conditions: Irregular tree spacing and various patch size. Horizontal variation in stand 

structure. Other key habitat components include snags 18 inches plus, down logs greater than 12 

inches midpoint diameter, and hardwoods. 

Target Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Intermediate thinning would be used to increase residual tree health and vigor and reduce fire 

hazard. 

Manage for 150 square feet of BA where present or to attain 150 square feet of BA in areas with 

site potential capable of sustaining high tree density in alternatives B and D. In alternative C, 

manage for a minimum 110 square feet and manage for ≥ 150 square feet of BA where present in 

areas with site potential capable of sustaining high tree density. 

Manage for irregular tree spacing to create canopy gaps and other structural conditions that would 

be conducive to low intensity prescribed fire treatment.

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition and whose crowns are outside the old tree crown drip line: (1) within a 50-foot 

radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown positions and (2) that would eliminate 

direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the old tree. 

No trees larger than 24-inch d.b.h. would be cut. 

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species will not be cut as part of the treatments. These species 

may only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trails and 

landings).

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches and at least 30 feet in height, CWD would 

be managed for 5 to 7 tons per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 

inches and a minimum of 8 feet in length. 

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height and reducing litter/duff cover and other surface fuel loading.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 615

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted target habitat forest 

structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Target Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height and reduce litter/duff cover and 

other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted target habitat forest 

structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Restricted Other (Table 117) 

Vegetation Management Direction: Current stand averages meet few of the threshold values in 

table III.B.1 of the MSO recovery plan (USDI 2012). Management would encourage 

development of threshold values that are lacking.

Desired Conditions: Uneven aged (3-plus age classes). Irregular tree spacing and various patch 

size. Horizontal variation in stand structure. Other key habitat components includes snags 18 

inches plus, down logs >12-inch midpoint diameter, and hardwoods. 

Restricted Other Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Uneven age thinning and group selection would be used to establish interspace between tree 

groups, thin tree groups, and create regeneration openings.

Treatments would strive to attain the following overall average density and structural 

characteristics described in table 117. 

Table 117. Restricted other habitat treatment criteria

Stand Averages

BA 70–90 ft2 

Stand density index – % of max 25–40

18 inch + trees/acre (TPA) ≥20 

Oak BA (square feet) ≥20+

Percent Total SDI by Size Class

12–18” ≥15

18–24” ≥15

24+” ≥15

Manage for a range of density and structural characteristics by thinning areas with a southerly 

aspect to an overall average of 60 to 80 square feet of BA and areas with northerly aspect to an 

overall average of 80 to 100 square feet of BA. Density would vary within these ranges 

depending on existing stand structure. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

616 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Individual trees and tree groups would occupy approximately 60 to 75 percent of the area. 

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

No trees larger than 24-inch d.b.h. would be cut. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with northerly aspects and highly 

productive microsites having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary 

within this range depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree 

evidence.

Manage for tree groups with different age classes by retaining individual and clumps of vigorous 

ponderosa pine seedlings, sapling, and poles within larger mid-aged, mature, or old tree groups. 

Trees within the dominate and codominant crown position would have priority for retention 

within groups. Where age class diversity is not present, 1 to 10 suppressed and intermediate trees 

per group would be retained for vertical diversity. 

Interspace would occupy approximately 25 to 40 percent of the area. 

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 60 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. 

Regeneration openings (group selection) account for 10 to 20 percent of tree groups. The 

percentage would vary within this range depending on current age class distribution. They would 

average 0.3 to 0.8 acre and would not exceed 200 feet wide. In general, regeneration openings 

would not be larger than 2 acres. However, they may extend up to 4 acres in specific areas where 

ponderosa pine mistletoe infections are heavy. They would only be established by removing 

groups of trees comprised of the most abundant tree size classes. Regeneration openings would be 

created adjacent to tree groups and would not be surrounded by interspace.

Manage moderate to heavy dwarf mistletoe infection centers that are not intended for 

regeneration openings for improved tree vigor and growth by retaining the best growing dominant 

and codominant trees with the least amount of mistletoe.

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 617

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation s.trategy), and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations). 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches and at least 30 feet in height, CWD would 

be managed for 5 to 7 tons per acre; downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches 

and a minimum of 8 feet in length. 

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. Prescribed fires are designed to 

maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted other habitat forest structure, tree densities, snag 

densities, and CWD levels.

Restricted Other Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height, reduce litter/duff cover, and 

produce effects that stimulate regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired MSO restricted other forest 

structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels. 

Goshawk Habitat

General – Ponderosa Pine

Vegetation Management Direction: Manage for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees and 

retain live reserve trees, snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels throughout ponderosa pine 

forest cover types. Manage for old age trees such that as much old forest structure as possible is 

sustained over time across the landscape. Provide for or preserve existing clumps of trees with 

interlocking crowns. Sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age 

classes, and species composition across the landscape. Encourage aspen and oak regeneration. 

Provide habitat for goshawk prey. 

Desired Conditions: Highly interspersed, heterogeneous pattern and size of tree groups and 

interspace across the landscape. Tree groups are dominated by trees of a similar age and range 

from young to old (uneven aged). Interspace has a robust herbaceous layer.

Landscapes Outside of Goshawk 

Post-fledgling Areas (LOPFA) – Ponderosa Pine

Vegetation Management Direction: Distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa 

pine – 10 percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent 

young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature forest (VSS 5), 20 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

618 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

percent old forest (VSS6). The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree age are a product of site 

quality in the EMA. Use site quality to guide in the distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree 

ages. Snags are ≥18-inch d.b.h. and ≥30 feet in height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and 

are ≥8 feet long, woody debris is ≥3 inches on the forest floor, canopy cover is measured with 

vertical crown projection on average across the landscape. Canopy cover guidelines apply only to 

mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6). Further 4FRI direction is 

documented in the forest plan amendment that clarifies openness and clarifies that guidelines for 

canopy cover apply to mid-aged to old forest structural stage dominated tree groups across the 

LOPFA.

Desired Conditions: Uneven-aged with a balance of age classes. Within group structure specific 

to mid-aged to old classes (VSS 4 to 6) includes open understories, interlocking tree crowns, 

abundant large limbs, and shade. 

LOPFA, WUI55, UEA40, UEA25 and UEA10 

Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Uneven-age thinning and group selection would be used to establish interspace between 

individual trees and tree groups, thin tree groups, and create regeneration openings within LOPFA 

sites with none to low dwarf mistletoe infections that are uneven age or even age with a quadratic 

mean diameter (QMD) ≥ 8.5 inches. 

Treatments would strive to attain an overall average density of 50 to 70 square feet of BA and 15 

to 35 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of groups, interspaces, and regeneration openings. 

Density would vary within this range depending on treatment intensity and existing stand 

structure. See section D for more detail on the relationship of overall density to interspace, tree 

groups, and regeneration openings.

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as displayed in table 118. 

Table 118. Percent of trees, tree groups, and interspaces by treatment intensity (LOPFA)

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

WUI55 30–45 55–70

UEA40 45–60 40–55

UEA25 60–75 25–40

UEA10 75–90 10–25

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would be managed to move toward a balance of age 

classes, both within and from tree group to tree group, by reducing the most abundant tree size 

classes and maintaining the underrepresented tree size classes.

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 619

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 40 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS4), mature forest (VSS5), and old forest (VSS6) tree groups and to 

assure that immature tree groups (VSS 2 and 3) are managed to maintain tree stocking necessary 

to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6. By following the 

stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, tree group 

density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for tree 

groups for the WUI55, UEA40, UEA25, and UEA10 mechanical thin treatments are as described 

in table 119. 

Table 119. LOPFA WUI and UEA treatments stocking guidelines for tree groups

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per Acre 

Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

1 & 2 

(20)

0–4.9 19 48 96 144 193 134–302 NA NA

3 (20) 5–11.9 14 34 68 102 136 83–215 NA NA

4 (20) 12–17.9 5 12 23 35 46 35–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 3 8 15 23 30 19–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 2 5 11 16 21 18–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4, 5, and 6 classes are 

equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking 

necessary to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2 Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class; the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Manage mid-aged, mature and old (VSS 4, 5, and 6) tree groups for a range of density and 

structural characteristics by thinning approximately 50 percent of the mid-aged, mature, and old 

tree groups to the lower density stocking, approximately 20 percent each to the middle density 

and upper density of desired stocking conditions as displayed in the stocking guideline table, and 

approximately 10 percent remain unthinned. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

620 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Manage for tree groups with different age classes by retaining individual and clumps of vigorous 

ponderosa pine seedlings, sapling, and poles within larger mid-aged, mature, or old tree groups. 

Trees within the dominate and codominant crown position would have priority for retention 

within groups. Where age class diversity is not present, 1 to 10 suppressed and intermediate trees 

per group would be retained for vertical diversity. 

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 120 feet with a maximum width 

of 200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described 

in table 120. 

Table 120. Interspace percent and width in LOPFA WUI and UEA treatments

Treatment Type and 

Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

Average Interspace 

Width (feet)

WUI55 55–70 80–120

UEA40 40–55 60–100

UEA25 25–40 40–60

UEA10 10–25 25–40

Regeneration openings (group selection) account for 10 to 20 percent of tree groups. The 

percentage would vary within this range depending on current VSS distribution. They would 

average 0.3 to 0.8 acre and would be no larger than 4 acres or 200 feet wide. They would only be 

established by removing groups of trees comprised of the most abundant tree size classes. 

Regeneration openings would be created adjacent to tree groups and would not be surrounded by 

interspace.

One group of reserve trees, three to five trees per group, would be left in created regeneration 

openings greater than an acre in size.

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks.

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy), and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 621

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA UEA forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

LOPFA UEA – ADGF Design Mechanical Thin and Burn (Alternative C) Design

Same as LOPFA UEA 10 with the exception of group size. Tree group size is dependent on 

experimental design and would range in size from 1 to 15 acres. 

LOPFA Intermediate Thin (IT) 40, 25, and 10 

Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Intermediate thinning (IT) would be used to establish interspace between individual trees and tree 

groups and thin tree groups within LOPFA sites with moderate to high dwarf mistletoe infection 

that are uneven age or even age with a QMD ≥ 8.5 inches. 

Treatments would strive to attain an overall average density of 70 to 90 square feet of BA and 25 

to 40 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of groups and interspaces. Density would vary within 

these ranges depending on treatment intensity and existing stand structure. See section D for more 

detail on the relationship of overall density to interspace and tree groups. 

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as described in table 121. 

Table 121. Percent of area occupied by trees, tree groups, and interspace in LOPFA IT

Treatment Type and 

Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree Groups

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

IT40 45–60 40–55

IT25 60–75 25–40

IT10 75–90 10–25

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

622 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree groups would be managed to improve tree vigor and growth by retaining the best growing 

dominant and codominant trees with the least amount of mistletoe within each group. 

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 40 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS4), mature forest (VSS5), and old forest (VSS6) tree groups. By 

following the stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, 

tree group density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for 

VSS 4, 5, and 6 tree groups for the IT40, IT25, and IT10 mechanical thin treatments as described 

in table 122. 

Table 122. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4 to 6 tree groups in LOPFA IT treatments

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per 

Acre Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

4 (20) 12–17.9 5 12 23 35 46 35–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 3 8 15 23 30 19–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 2 5 11 16 21 18–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4, 5, and 6 classes are 

equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking 

necessary to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 80 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described in 

table 123. 

Table 123. Percent and width of interspace in LOPFA IT treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

Average Interspace Width 

(feet)

IT40 40–55 60–80

IT25 25–40 40–60

IT10 10–25 25–40

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 623

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy), and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA IT forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

LOPFA Stand Improvement (SI) 40, 25, and 10 

Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Stand improvement thinning would be used to establish interspace between individual trees and 

tree groups, and thin tree groups within LOPFA sites with none to low dwarf mistletoe infection 

and are even-age sites with a QMD ≤ 8.5 inches.

Treatments would strive to attain an overall stand average density of 20 to 25 percent of 

maximum SDI inclusive of groups and interspaces. Density would vary within this range 

depending on treatment intensity and existing stand structure. See section D for more detail on the 

relationship of overall density to interspace and tree groups. 

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as described in table 124. 

Table 124. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, tree groups, and interspace in 

LOPFA SI treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree Groups

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

SI40 45–60 40–55

SI25 60–75 25–40

SI10 75–90 10–25

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

624 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree groups would be managed to improve tree vigor and growth by retaining the best growing 

dominant and codominant trees.

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 40 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree groups and to 

assure that immature tree groups (VSS 2 and 3) are managed to maintain tree stocking necessary 

to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6. By following the 

stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, tree group 

density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for tree 

groups for the SI40, SI25, and SI10 mechanical thin treatments are as described in table 125. 

Table 125. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in LOPFA SI treatments

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per 

Acre Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

1 & 2 

(20)

0–4.9 19 48 96 144 193 134–302 NA NA

3 (20) 5–11.9 14 34 68 102 136 83–215 NA NA

4 (20) 12–17.9 5 12 23 35 46 35–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 3 8 15 23 30 19–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 2 5 11 16 21 18–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4, 5, and 6 classes are 

equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking 

necessary to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 80 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described in 

table 126. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 625

Table 126. Interspace percent and width LOPFA SI treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

Average Interspace 

Width (feet)

IT40 40–55 60–80

IT25 25–40 40–60

IT10 10–25 25–40

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy), and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA SI forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels. 

LOPFA Pine Sage Mechanical and Burn Treatment Design

Restore pre-settlement tree density and pattern using pre-settlement evidence as guidance.

Treatment would strive to attain an overall average density of 30 to 50 square feet of BA and 15 

to 25 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces. Density 

would vary within this range depending on existing stand structure. See section D for more detail 

on the relationship of overall density to interspace and tree groups. 

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

626 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Retain all pre-settlement trees and the largest post-settlement trees available that most closely 

resemble old trees in size and form as replacement trees adjacent to pre-settlement tree evidences. 

Some younger trees would also be retained to maintain uneven-aged structure.

Replacement tree density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 40 plus 

percent within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree 

groups. By following the stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking 

tree crowns, tree group density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. See table 

127 for the stocking guidelines for VSS 4, 5, and 6 tree groups for the pine-sage mechanical thin 

treatments.

Table 127. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4 to VSS 6 tree groups in LOPFA pine-sage 

treatments

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4, 5, and 6 classes are 

equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking 

necessary to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak would not be cut unless there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).

Juniper and pinyon species in the seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged stages would generally 

be cut except where needed as replacements for pre-settlement trees. Mature juniper and pinyon 

would only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trail and 

landing locations). 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per Acre 

Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

4 (20) 12–17.9 5 12 23 35 46 35–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 3 8 15 23 30 19–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 2 5 11 16 21 18–38 40–49 51–61
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 627

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired understory composition and cover 

as well as LOPFA pine sage forest structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Savanna/Grassland Restoration 

Mechanical and Burn Treatments Design

Restore pre-settlement tree density and pattern using pre-settlement evidence as guidance. 

Manage for an open reference condition with 10 to 30 percent of the area under ponderosa pine 

and deciduous tree crowns. 

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention.

Tree group arrangement, size, and density are a function of existing pre-settlement trees and 

evidence. Retain all pre-settlement trees and the largest post-settlement trees that most closely 

resemble old trees in size and form as replacement trees adjacent to pre-settlement tree evidences 

at a 1:1 ratio. Some younger trees would also be retained to maintain uneven-aged structure. A 

higher leave tree to evidence ratio may be required to maintain the desired tree cover range.

Manage for a range of 70 to 90 percent of the treatment area as interspace (grass/forb) between 

tree groups or individuals. Amount of interspace would vary within this range depending on 

current conditions. 

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak would not be cut unless there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).

Juniper and pinyon species in the seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged stages would generally 

be cut except where needed as replacements for pre-settlement trees. Mature juniper and pinyon 

would only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trail and 

landing locations). 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

628 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA savanna/grassland forest 

structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

LOPFA Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height, reduce litter/duff cover, and 

produce effects that stimulate regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Goshawk PFA – Ponderosa Pine

Vegetation Management Direction: Provide for a healthy, sustainable forest environment for the 

post-fledgling family needs. The principle difference between “within the post-fledgling family 

area” and “outside the post-fledgling family area” is the higher canopy cover and smaller opening

size within the post-fledgling family area. Vegetative structural stage distribution and structural 

conditions are the same within and outside the post-fledgling family area. Ponderosa pine canopy 

cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) should average one-third 60 plus percent and two-thirds 50 

plus percent. Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should average 50 plus percent. Further 

4FRI direction clarifies that canopy cover guidelines apply to mid-aged to old forest structural 

stage dominated tree groups.

Desired Conditions: Uneven-aged with a balance of age classes. Within group structure specific 

to mid-aged to old classes (VSS 4 to 6) includes open understories, interlocking tree crowns, 

abundant large limbs, and shade. 

dPFA/PFA UEA40, dPFA/PFA UEA25 and 

dPFA/PFA UEA10 Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Uneven-age thinning and group selection would be used to establish interspace between 

individual trees and tree groups, thin tree groups, and create regeneration openings within 

dPFA/PFA sites with none to low dwarf mistletoe infections that are uneven age or even age with 

a QMD ≥ 8.5 inches. 

Treatments would strive to attain an overall average density of 70 to 80 square feet of BA and 25 

to 40 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of groups, interspaces, and regeneration openings. 

Density would vary within this range depending on treatment intensity and existing stand 

structure. See section D for more detail on the relationship of overall density to interspace, tree 

groups, and regeneration openings. 

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as described in table 128. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 629

Table 128. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, tree groups, and interspace in 

dPFA/PFA UEA treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree Groups

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

UEA40 45–60 40–55

UEA25 60–75 25–40

UEA10 75–90 10–25

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would be managed to move toward a balance of age 

classes, both within and from tree group to tree group, by reducing the most abundant tree size 

classes and maintaining the underrepresented tree size classes.

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention.

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 50 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree groups and to 

assure that immature tree groups (VSS 2 and 3) are managed to maintain tree stocking necessary 

to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6. By following the 

stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, tree group 

density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for tree 

groups for the dPFA/PFA UEA40, UEA25, and UEA10 mechanical thin treatments are described 

in table 129. 

Manage mid-aged, mature, and old (VSS 4, 5, and 6) tree groups for a range of density and 

structural characteristics by thinning approximately 50 percent of the mid-aged, mature, and old 

tree groups to the lower density stocking, approximately 20 percent each to the middle density 

and upper density stocking as displayed in the stocking guideline table, and approximately 10 

percent remain unthinned. 

Manage for tree groups with different age classes by retaining individual and clumps of vigorous 

ponderosa pine seedlings, sapling, and poles within larger mid-aged, mature, or old tree groups. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

630 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 129. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in dPFA/PFA WUI and UEA treatments

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per Acre 

Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

1 & 2 

(20)

0–4.9 19 48 96 144 193 134–302 NA NA

3 (20) 5–11.9 14 34 68 102 136 83–215 NA NA

4 (20) 12–17.9 7 18 35 53 70 51–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 4 10 20 29 39 28–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 3 7 14 20 27 26–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4 classes are 

equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover; Densities within the VSS 5 and VSS 6 classes are equivalent to 50 percent 

canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking necessary to provide for 

desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Trees within the dominate and codominant crown position would have priority for retention 

within groups. Where age class diversity is not present, 1 to 10 suppressed and intermediate trees 

per group would be retained for vertical diversity.

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 70 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described in 

table 130. 

Table 130. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA WUI and UEA treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace Average Interspace Width (feet)

UEA40 40–55 55–70

UEA25 25–40 40–55

UEA10 10–25 25–40

Regeneration openings (group selection) account for 10 to 20 percent of tree groups. They would 

average 0.3 to 0.8 acre and would be no larger than 2 acres or 200 feet wide. They would only be 

established by removing groups of trees comprised of the most abundant tree size classes. 

Regeneration openings would be created adjacent to tree groups and would not be surrounded by 

interspace.

One group of reserve trees, three to five trees per group, would be left in created regeneration 

openings greater than an acre in size.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 631

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy), and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations). 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA UEA forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

dPFA/PFA UEA – ADGF Design Mechanical Thin and Burn (Alternative C) Design

Same as dPFA/PFA UEA 10 with the exception of group size. Tree group size is dependent on 

experimental design and would range in size from 1 to 15 acres. 

dPFA/PFA IT40, 25 and 10 

Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Intermediate thinning would be used to establish interspace between individual trees and tree 

groups and thin tree groups within dPFA/PFA sites with moderate to high dwarf mistletoe 

infection that are uneven age or even age with a QMD ≥ 8.5 inches.

Treatments would strive to attain an overall average density of 70 to 90 square feet of BA and 25 

to 40 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of groups and interspaces. Density would vary within 

this range depending on treatment intensity and existing stand structure. See section D for more 

detail on the relationship of overall density to interspace and tree groups. 

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as described in table 131. 

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

632 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 131. Percent of area occupied by trees and interspace for dPFA/PFA IT

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree Groups

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

IT40 45–60 40–55

IT25 60–75 25–40

IT10 75–90 10–25

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree groups would be managed to improve tree vigor and growth by retaining the best growing 

dominant and codominant trees with the least amount of mistletoe within each group. 

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 50 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree groups. By 

following the stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, 

tree group density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for 

VSS 4, 5, and 6 tree groups for the dPFA/PFA IT40, IT25, and IT10 mechanical thin treatments 

are described in table 132. 

Table 132. dPFA/PFA IT treatments stocking guidelines for VSS 4 – 6 tree groups

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per 

Acre Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

4 (20) 12–17.9 7 18 35 53 70 51–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 4 10 20 29 39 28–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 3 7 14 20 27 26–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4 classes are 

equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover; Densities within the VSS 5 and VSS 6 classes are equivalent to 50 percent 

canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking necessary to provide for 

desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 633

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 80 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described in 

table 133. 

Table 133. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA IT

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

Average Interspace Width 

(feet)

IT40 40–55 60–80

IT25 25–40 40–60

IT10 10–25 25–40

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy); and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations). 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA IT forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

dPFA/PFA SI40, 25, and 10 Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatments Design

Stand improvement thinning would be used to establish interspace between individual trees and 

tree groups and thin tree groups within dPFA/PFA even-age sites with a QMD ≤ 8.5 inches and 

with none to low dwarf mistletoe infection.

Treatments would strive to attain a stand average density of 20 to 25 percent of maximum SDI 

inclusive of groups and interspaces. These ranges would vary depending on treatment intensity 

and existing stand structure. See section D for more detail on the relationship of overall density to 

interspace and tree groups.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

634 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces would occupy the following percent of the area by 

treatment intensity as described in table 134. 

Table 134. Percent of area occupied by individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces in 

dPFA/PFA SI treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area Occupied by 

Individual Trees and Tree Groups

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

SI40 45–60 40–55

SI25 60–75 25–40

SI10 75–90 10–25

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention. 

Manage for the sustainability of individual/isolated old ponderosa pine trees as defined in the old 

tree implementation strategy by reducing crown competition and increasing growing space 

adjacent to these trees. Remove ponderosa pine trees up to 18 inches d.b.h. that do not meet the 

old tree definition: (1) within a 50-foot radius that are in the intermediate or suppressed crown 

positions and (2) that would eliminate direct crown competition on two of the four sides of the 

old tree. 

Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre with lower treatment intensities 

having larger average group sizes. Overall, average group size would vary within this range 

depending on site quality, existing stand structure, and pre-settlement tree evidence.

Tree groups would be managed to improve tree vigor and growth by retaining the best growing 

dominant and codominant trees.

Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 50 plus percent 

within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree groups and to 

assure that immature tree groups (VSS 2 and 3) are managed to maintain tree stocking necessary 

to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6. By following the 

stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking tree crowns, tree group 

density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking guidelines for tree 

groups for the dPFA/PFA SI40, SI25, and SI10 mechanical thin treatments are described in table 

135. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 635

Table 135. Stocking guidelines for tree groups in dPFA/PFA SI treatments

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per 

Acre Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

1 & 2 

(20)

0–4.9 19 48 96 144 193 134–302 NA NA

3 (20) 5–11.9 14 34 68 102 136 83–215 NA NA

4 (20) 12–17.9 7 18 35 53 70 51–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 4 10 20 29 39 28–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 3 7 14 20 27 26–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4 classes are 

equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover; densities within the VSS 5 and VSS 6 classes are equivalent to 50 percent 

canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking necessary to provide for 

desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2 Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 to 80 feet with a maximum width of 

200 feet. Average interspace width would vary depending on treatment intensity as described in 

table 136. 

Table 136. Interspace percent and width in dPFA/PFA SI treatments

Treatment Type 

and Intensity

Percent of Area 

Occupied by Interspace

Average Interspace Width 

(feet)

SI40 40–55 60–80

SI25 25–40 40–60

SI10 10–25 25–40

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species would not be cut with the following exceptions: 

seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged pinyon and juniper up to 11-inch d.r.c. may be cut within a 

50-foot radius of individual or groups of old ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree 

implementation strategy); and when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

636 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch drc may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA SI forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

dPFA/PFA Pine Sage Mechanical and Burn Treatment Design

Restore pre-settlement tree density and pattern using pre-settlement evidence as guidance.

Treatments would strive to attain an overall stand average density of 30 to 50 square feet of BA 

and 15 to 25 percent of maximum SDI inclusive of individual trees, tree groups, and interspaces. 

Density would vary within this range depending on existing stand structure. See section D for 

more detail on the relationship of overall density to interspace and tree groups. 

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention.

Retain all pre-settlement trees and the largest post-settlement trees available that most closely 

resemble old trees in size and form as replacement trees adjacent to pre-settlement tree evidences. 

Some younger trees would also be retained to maintain uneven-aged structure. 

Replacement tree density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 50 plus 

percent within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) tree 

groups. By following the stocking guidelines and maintaining interlocking or nearly interlocking 

tree crowns, tree group density would meet and exceed the canopy cover requirements. Stocking 

guidelines for VSS 4, 5, and 6 tree groups for the pine sage mechanical thin treatments are as

described in table 137. 

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak would not be cut unless there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid 

trail and landing locations).
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 637

Table 137. Stocking guidelines for VSS 4–6 tree groups in dPFA/PFA pine-sage treatments

VSS 

Class

(% of 

area)

d.b.h.

Class 

(inches)

Typical Trees Per Group Stocking at the 

Midpoint Diameter of the VSS Class1

Within Group Trees Per 

Acre Range2

1/10-ac 

group

1⁄4-ac 

group

1⁄2-ac 

group

3⁄4-ac 

group

1-ac 

group

Lower 

Density

Middle 

Density

Upper 

Density

4 (20) 12–17.9 7 18 35 53 70 51–115 70–146 89–185

5 (20) 18–23.9 4 10 20 29 39 28–59 43–79 54–96

6 (20) ≥24 3 7 14 20 27 26–38 40–49 51–61

1 These are typical values for the mid-point diameter of the VSS class. Densities within the VSS 4 classes are 

equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover; densities within the VSS 5 and VSS 6 classes are equivalent to 50 percent 

canopy cover. Densities within the VSS 1, 2, and 3 classes are to maintain tree stocking necessary to provide for 

desired canopy cover as the groups mature to VSS 4, 5, and 6.

2Variation in tree group stocking above the minimum required to maintain canopy cover can occur and is desired. The 

smallest TPA number for the range pertains to the largest diameter of the VSS class, the highest TPA number for the 

range pertains to the smallest diameter of the VSS class. See section D for further detail on stocking by diameter.

Juniper and pinyon species in the seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged stages would generally 

be cut except where needed as replacements for pre-settlement trees. Mature juniper and pinyon 

would only be cut when there is no other option to facilitate logging operations (skid trail and 

landing locations). 

Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species greater than 5-inch d.r.c. may be considered as residual 

trees in the target group spacing and stocking. 

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. Prescribed fires are designed to 

maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA savanna/grassland forest structure, tree densities, snag 

densities, and CWD levels.

dPFA/PFA Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height, reduce litter/duff cover, and 

produce effects that stimulate regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Nest Area

Vegetation Management Direction: Provide unique nesting habitat conditions for goshawks. 

Important features include trees of mature to old age with high canopy cover. The structure of the 

vegetation within nest areas is associated with the forest type, and tree age, size and density, and 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

638 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

the developmental history of the stand. Table 138 represents GTR-RM-217 attributes required for 

goshawks on location with “low” and “high” site productivity. The nesting area contains only 

mature to old forest (VSS 5 and 6) having a canopy cover (measured vertically) between 50 to 70 

percent with old forest VSS 6 trees 200 to 300 years old. Nonuniform spacing of tree and 

clumpiness is desirable.

Desired Conditions: Even-aged dominated by mature and/or old forest structural stages. 

Goshawk Nest Area Burn Only Treatment Design

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible.

Prescribed fires are designed to increase tree canopy base height and reduce litter/duff cover and 

other surface fuel loading. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired dPFA/PFA forest structure, tree 

densities, snag densities, and CWD levels. Desired goshawk nest stand structural attributes are as 

described in table 138. 

Table 138. Minimum structural attributes in suitable goshawk nest stands*

Structural Attribute Minimum Metrics

Site Index <55 ≥55

Trees/Acre 40 30

Mean d.b.h. (in.) 16 22

Age (yrs.) 200+ 200+

Total BA (sq. ft./acre) 120 140

Overstory canopy cover 50+ 60+

VSS 5B-6 5B-6 

* GTR-RM-217, southwest ponderosa pine cover types

Landscapes Outside of Goshawk Post-fledgling Areas (LOPFA) – Pinyon-Juniper

Vegetation Management Direction: Manage for uneven-age conditions to sustain a mosaic of 

vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well 

distributed across the landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris. 

Desired Conditions: Mosaic of young and mature, species diverse patches of trees interspersed 

with interspace across the landscape to promote the growth of sagebrush, oak, cliffrose, and other 

shrubs and herbaceous understory species. Mature patches would be structurally diverse, 

containing large live and dead standing trees as well as trees with dead or broken tops, gnarls, and 

burls. The structure and composition reflects the natural range of variation. 

Pinyon Juniper (PJ) WUI Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Uneven-age thinning would be used to establish interspace between tree groups and thin tree 

groups within LOPFA PJ sites. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 639

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities and dead tops would also be favored for retention. 

Retain one to three groups per acre containing approximately 5 to 30 trees each (averaging 30 to 

60 trees per acre across the site). Form groups around existing concentrations of large, mature 

trees. Retain additional healthy, young, free-to-grow trees within groups where possible. 

Between groups, thin from below to 16-inch d.r.c. for pinyon and juniper and 16-inch d.b.h. for 

ponderosa pine (see next). 

Where ponderosa pine is present, retain all pre-settlement yellow pines and one to two 

replacement blackjacks per existing yellow pine or pre-settlement evidence (i.e., to approximate 

the naturally occurring stand composition). Replacement blackjacks should be comprised of a 

variety of size classes. Blackjacks would be retained within 100 feet of the yellow pine or presettlement evidence they are replacing.

Manage for the sustainability of large oaks by removing ladder fuels and overtopping trees. 

Remove ponderosa pine that are within 30 feet of the base of oak 10-inch d.r.c. or larger as 

follows: (1) On the southerly side of the oak (135 to 315 degrees) trees up to 18-inch d.b.h. and 

(2) On the northerly side of the oak (316 to 134 degrees) trees in the intermediate or suppressed 

crown positions up to 18-inch d.b.h. Exceptions to removal would be trees that meet the old tree 

definition and trees that have interlocking crown with oaks. 

Gambel oak would not be cut with the exception of when there is no other option to facilitate 

logging operations (skid trail and landing locations). 

Snags would be managed for one per acre over 75 percent of the area and CWD would be 

managed for an after treatment average of 1 to 3 tons per acre. Where available, a portion of the 

CWD would include two logs ≥10 inches and ≥10 feet in length. 

Prescribed burns may be used to treat fuels and mitigate fuel hazards where and when feasible by 

increasing tree canopy base height, reducing litter/duff cover, and producing effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation.

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired LOPFA PJ WUI forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Other Areas Outside MSO and Goshawk Habitats

Aspen

Vegetation Management Direction: Conifer removal, partial removal of overstory aspen, 

ground-disturbing activities, and fire would be used to stimulate aspen sprouting in areas that 

have or previously had aspen. 

Desired Conditions: Aspen is successfully regenerating and recruiting into older and larger size 

classes. Size classes have a natural distribution, with the greatest number of stems in the smallest 

classes. Coniferous species comprise less than 10 percent of the overstory.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

640 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Aspen Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design

Inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine stands would be regenerated by 

removing all post-settlement conifers from within 100 feet of the aspen clone. Some removal of 

aspen within the clone as well as ground-disturbing activity or burning may occur to stimulate 

suckering.

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities, dead tops, and lightning scars would also be favored for retention.

Snags would be managed for two per acre ≥18 inches, CWD would be managed for 5 to 7 tons 

per acre, and downed logs would be managed for three per acre ≥12 inches.

Each clone would be evaluated as to need for fencing or creation of other barriers to reduce 

ungulate browsing of regenerating aspen. 

Prescribed burns may be used where and when feasible to treat fuels, mitigate fuel hazards, and to 

produce effects that stimulate aspen suckering and regeneration, and growth of native herbaceous 

vegetation. Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired aspen forest structure, 

tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Aspen Burn Only Treatment Design

Inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine stands would be regenerated by 

prescribed burning to stimulate suckering.

Prescribed burns are designed to reduce post-settlement conifer stocking within 100 feet of the 

aspen clone and disturb the site with sufficient intensity to encourage aspen regeneration.

Each clone would be evaluated as to need for fencing or creation of other barriers to reduce 

ungulate browsing of regenerating aspen. 

Grassland

Vegetation Management Direction: Reduce conifer encroachment within grasslands as 

identified by mollisol soils.

Desired Conditions: Restore historic grassland/forest edge as indicated by existing presettlement conifers and evidence of pre-settlement conifers.

Grassland Mechanical Thin and Burn Treatment Design (Alternative C Only)

Treatments are designed to promote and reestablish the historic meadow edge as defined by presettlement trees and evidences and the current forest structure of young trees encroaching on the 

edge of the grassland.

Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees in order to have and sustain as much old 

forest structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation strategy, and old trees would not be targeted for cutting. Live conifer trees with 

existing cavities and dead tops would also be favored for retention. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 641

Tree group arrangement, size, and density are a function of existing pre-settlement trees and 

evidence. Retain all pre-settlement trees and the largest post-settlement trees that most closely 

resemble old trees in size and form as replacement trees adjacent to pre-settlement tree evidences 

at a 1:1 ratio. Ponderosa pine, pinyon, and juniper not meeting long-lived characteristics may be 

removed. 

Gambel oak would be retained. 

Prescribed burns may be used where and when feasible to treat fuels, mitigate fuel hazards, and to 

produce effects that stimulate regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. 

Prescribed fires are designed to maintain and enhance desired grassland conditions.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

642 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Section B – Decision Matrix

Table 139. Section B decision matrix for establishing tree groups, interspace, and regeneration openings

Feature Placement Reserve Trees 

within Feature Thinning Thinning Leave Tree Criteria

Large Tree Implementation Plan

(Alternative C)

Tree Group 1 – Abundance of 

pre-settlement tree 

evidence

2 – Underrepresented 

tree classes (e.g., free 

to grow 

seedling/saplings; 

trees of different 

cohort than 

neighboring trees)

3 – High percentage 

of trees exhibiting 

good health and vigor

1 – Old tree 

characteristics (old 

tree implementation 

plan) regardless of size

2 – Oak, pinyon, and 

juniper with 

exceptions

3 – Wildlife trees 

(cavities, dead tops)

Tree group 

stocking 

guidelines

1 – Trees in the dominant and 

codominant crown position 

exhibiting vigor relative to age 

regardless of size

2 – Crown ratio >40% 

desirable; crown ratio 25–40% 

acceptable

3 – Free of mistletoe or low 

dwarf mistletoe rating relative 

to neighboring trees; free of 

pine beetle activity

4 – Trees >12′′ high percentage 

of interlocking crown; Trees 

<12′′ ability to develop 

interlocking crown

Heavily-Stocked Stands (with high BA) 

Generated by a Preponderance of Large, 

Young Trees

Does the decision matrix meet the conditions 

described by the large tree implementation 

plan category:

Yes ______

No ______

If no, describe what the condition(s) is, and 

why it does not meet the exception:

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Ponderosa Pine/Gambel Oak Forest

Does the decision matrix meet the conditions 

described by the large tree implementation 

plan category:

Yes ______

No ______

If no, describe what the condition(s) is, and 

why it does not meet the exception:

_____________________________________

_____________________________________
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 643

Feature Placement Reserve Trees 

within Feature Thinning Thinning Leave Tree Criteria

Large Tree Implementation Plan

(Alternative C)

Interspace 1 – Little to no pre–

settlement tree 

evidence

2 – Existing 

nonstocked openings

3 – High percentage 

of trees exhibiting 

poor health and vigor

4 - Contiguous area 

of well-represented 

cohorts

1 – Old tree 

characteristics (old 

tree implementation 

plan) regardless of 

size.

2 – Oak, pinyon and 

juniper

3 – Wildlife trees 

(cavities, dead tops)

NA NA Within-Stand Openings:

Does the decision matrix meet the conditions 

described by the large tree implementation 

plan category:

Yes ______

No ______

If no, describe what the condition(s) is, and 

why it does not meet the exception:

____________________________________

____________________________________

Regeneration 

Opening

1 – Contiguous area 

of well-represented 

cohort.

2 – Isolated patch of 

mistletoe infected 

trees within the wellrepresented cohort.

3 – Adjacent to seed 

bearing tree groups 

that are free of 

mistletoe infection.

1 – Old tree 

characteristics (old 

tree implementation 

plan) regardless of 

size.

2 – Oak, pinyon, and 

juniper

3 – Wildlife trees 

(cavities, dead tops) 

4 – Largest, 

healthiest, seed 

bearing ponderosa 

pine (within openings 

>1 ac)

NA NA NA
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

644 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Section C – Old Tree Implementation Plan

Old Tree Descriptions and Illustrations

Old trees (approximately >150 years old) would be retained, with few exceptions, regardless of 

their diameter, within the 4FRI on the Coconino and Kaibab NF’s EIS area. Removal of old trees 

would be rare. Exceptions would be made for threats to human health and safety, and those rare 

circumstances where the removal of an old tree is necessary in order to prevent additional habitat 

degradation. Old trees would not be cut for forest health issues or to balance age or size class 

distributions. 

One example of a situation where the removal of an old tree is necessary in order to prevent 

additional habitat degradation is in the rare case of an old tree growing on the side of an existing 

curve in a road. Logging equipment may require a wider turning radius. The options are to 

relocate the road or cut the old tree and widen the curve to accommodate the larger turning radius. 

Relocating the road would result in a larger area of the forest being permanently disturbed, versus 

cutting the large tree and widening the curves radius. This is an example where cutting the old 

tree would result in less habitat degradation then relocating a road. 

Old trees would be determined by the following characteristics described by Thomson (1940) as 

age class 3 (intermediate-mature) and age class 4 (mature-overmature). 

• Age – Approximately 150 years and older.

• D.b.h. – Site dependent.

• Bark – ranging from reddish brown, shading to black in the top with moderately large 

plates between the fissures to reddish brown to yellow, with very wide, long, and smooth 

plates.

• Tops – ranging from pyramidal or rounded (occasionally pointed) to flat (making no 

further height growth). 

• Branching – ranging from upturned in upper third of the crown, horizontal in the middle 

third, and drooping in the lower third of the crown to mostly large, drooping, gnarled, or 

crooked. Branch whorls range from incomplete and indistinct except at the top to 

completely indistinct and incomplete.

Figure 72 and figure 73 display illustrations of age class 3 (intermediate-mature) and age class 4 

(mature-overmature) from Thompson 1940. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 645

Figure 72. Old tree characteristics (Thompson 1940)

Figure 73. Old age tree characteristics continued (Thompson 1940)
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

646 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Section D – Modified Large Tree Implementation Plan (Alternative C)

Introduction

The large tree implementation plan is specific to alternative C. It is designed to inform 

implementation. It responds to comments received during scoping (August 2011). The plan’s 

desired conditions are consistent with the summarized desired conditions found in the project’s 

purpose and need and the plan provides additional citations that support the desired conditions. It 

incorporates the old tree implementation plan be reference.

For the purpose of this document, large post-settlement trees, as defined by the socio-political 

process, are those that are 16-inch d.b.h. or larger. Trees greater than or equal to 18-inch d.b.h. 

represent VSS 5 and 6. VSS 5 and 6 represent the largest and (sometimes) oldest trees. These size 

classes best correspond with the successional stage classification system that was developed to 

address the forest dynamics of southwestern ponderosa pine. 

The plan may not include every instance where large post-settlement trees may be cut. There may 

be additional areas and/or circumstances where large post-settlement trees need to be removed in 

order to achieve restoration objectives. During implementation (prescription development), if a 

condition exists that does not the meet the desired conditions included in this strategy, no large 

trees would be cut until the NEPA decision is reviewed by the Forest Service implementation 

team. The team would decide whether the action is consistent with the analysis and the decision 

made. This information would be made part of the annual implementation plan 

checklist/compliance review that is recommended by the team and approved by the forest 

supervisor. 

Seeps and Springs

Seeps are locations where surface-emergent groundwater causes ephemeral or perennial moist 

soil or bedrock. Standing or running water is infrequent or absent. Vegetation and other biological 

diversity are adapted to mesic soils. Springs are small areas where surface-emergent groundwater 

causes ephemeral or perennial standing or running water and wet or moist soils. Vegetation and 

other biological diversity are adapted to mesic soils or aquatic environments (Feth and Hem 

1963). 

Seeps and springs exhibit unique, often isolated biophysical conditions that can sustain unique, 

mesic-adapted biological diversity, and can facilitate endemism and speciation. Springs also 

provide water and other habitat to terrestrial wildlife. Due to the absence of frequent fires in the 

presence of livestock grazing, the establishment of large post-settlement trees may reduce 

available soil moisture (Simonin et al. 2007) and block the sunlight necessary to support the 

unique biophysical conditions associated with seeps and springs. 

Removal of trees that have encroached upon seeps and springs may constitute a relatively small 

part of an overall seep and spring restoration effort, when compared to fully addressing root 

causes of overall degradation. Thinning alone, without addressing other sources of degradation, is 

unlikely to fully restore seeps and springs (Thompson et al. 2002). However, it is a necessary step 

leading to the restoration of these ecologically important areas.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 647

Desired Conditions

• The biophysical conditions in seeps and springs upon which terrestrial, mesic-adapted, 

and aquatic native biological diversity depend are conserved and restored.

• The integrity of the spring’s unique biophysical attributes is not compromised by tree 

shading. 

• Mesic soils associated with a seep or spring are not encroached upon by conifers.

• If treatment occurs, an equivalent number of large replacement trees remain where there 

is evidence that pre-settlement trees have grown in similar root and crown proximity to a 

particular seep or spring in the past.

Riparian

Riparian areas occur along ephemeral or perennial streams or are located downgradient of seeps 

or springs. These areas exhibit riparian vegetation, mesic soils, and/or aquatic environments.

Riparian areas exhibit unique biophysical conditions that can sustain unique, mesic-adapted, or 

aquatic biological diversity. Riparian areas and the streams, springs, and seeps connected to them 

often harbor imperiled species that can be sources of endemism. Riparian areas also provide 

water and other habitat to terrestrial wildlife. In the absence of frequent fires and in the presence 

of other competing factors, large post-settlement trees may have become established and grown 

within riparian areas to the point that they compromise available soil moisture or light that 

support the unique biophysical conditions that are associated with the riparian areas. However, it 

is likely to be a very rare circumstance that conifer trees of any size would need to be removed 

from forested riparian zones. 

Desired Conditions

• The biophysical conditions in riparian habitat upon which terrestrial and aquatic native 

biological diversity depends are conserved and restored.

• The use of soil and water best management practices (BMPs) minimize the impacts of 

cutting trees within riparian areas.

• Removal of trees constitutes a relatively small part of an overall riparian area restoration 

effort, when compared to the fundamental causes of overall degradation. Riparian areas 

are fully restored by using an array of tools that address all sources of degradation. 

• Available soil moisture or light that support that area’s unique biophysical conditions is 

not compromised by growing (rooted) trees. 

• If treatment occurs, an equivalent number of large replacement trees remain where there 

is evidence that pre-settlement trees have grown in similar root and crown proximity to a 

particular seep or spring in the past.

• Post-treatment snags and logs that include large trees are available onsite.

Wet Meadows

High elevation streamside or spring-fed meadows occur in numerous locations throughout the 

Southwest. However, less than 1 percent of the landscape in the region is characterized as wetland 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

648 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

(Dahl 1990), and wet meadows are just one of several wetland types that occur. Patton and Judd 

(1970) reported that approximately 17,700 hectares of wet meadows occur on national forests in 

Arizona and New Mexico.

Wet meadows may be referred to as riparian meadows, montane (or high elevation) riparian 

meadows, sedge meadows, or simply as wet meadows. Wet meadows are usually located in 

valleys or swales, but may occasionally be found in isolated depressions, such as along the 

fringes of ponds and lakes with no outlets. Where wet meadows have not been excessively 

altered, sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) are common 

species (Patton and Judd 1970, Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Muldavin et al. 2000). Willow 

(Salix) and alder (Alnus) species often occur in or adjacent to these meadows (Long 2000, Long 

2002, Maschinski 2001, Medina and Steed 2002). High elevation wet meadows frequently occur 

along a gradient that includes aquatic vegetation at the lower end and mesic meadows, dry 

meadows, and ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forest at the upper end. These vegetation 

gradients are closely associated with differences in flooding, depth to water table, and soil 

characteristics (Judd 1972, Castelli et al. 2000, Dwire et al. 2006). While relatively rare, wet 

meadows are believed to be of disproportionate value because of their use by wildlife and the 

range of other ecosystem services they provide. Wet meadows perform many of the same 

ecosystem functions associated with other wetland types, such as water quality improvement, 

reduction of flood peaks, and carbon sequestration. 

Wet meadows are one of the most heavily altered ecosystems. They have been used extensively 

for grazing livestock, have become the site of many small dams and stock tanks, have had roads 

built through them, and have experienced other types of hydrologic alterations. Most notably, the 

lowering of their water tables due to stream downcutting, surface water diversions, or 

groundwater withdrawal (Neary and Medina 1996) has occurred. In the presence of livestock 

grazing and hydrologic changes, large post-settlement trees may have established and grown 

within wet meadows such that they compromise available soil moisture or light creating unique 

biophysical conditions.

Desired Conditions

• The biophysical conditions of wet meadows upon which terrestrial native biological 

diversity depend are conserved and restored.

• Wet meadow function is not impaired by growing (rooted) trees.

• If treatment occurs, an equivalent number of large replacement trees remain where there 

is evidence that pre-settlement trees have grown in similar root and crown proximity to a 

particular seep or spring in the past.

• Removal of large trees constitutes a relatively small part of an overall riparian area 

restoration effort, when compared to the fundamental causes of overall degradation. Wet 

meadows are fully restored by using an array of tools that address all sources of 

degradation. 

Encroached Grasslands

Encroached grasslands are herbaceous ecosystems that have infrequent to no evidence of pine 

trees growing prior to settlement. The two prevalent grassland categories in the 4FRI landscape 

are montane (includes subalpine) grasslands and Colorado Plateau (a subset of Great Basin) 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 649

grasslands, with montane grasslands being most common (Finch 2004). A key indicator of 

grasslands is the presence of mollisol soils. Mollisol soils are typically deeper with higher rates of 

accumulation and decomposition of soil organic matter relative to soils in the surrounding 

landscape. Grasslands in this region evolved during the Miocene and Pliocene periods, and the 

dark, rich soils observed in grasslands today have taken more than 3 million years to produce. In 

addition to their association with mollic soils, grasslands in this region are maintained by a 

combination of climate, fire, wind desiccation and, to a lesser extent, by animal herbivory (Finch 

2004). 

Typical montane grasslands in this region are characterized by Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) 

meadows on elevated plains of basaltic and sandstone residual soils. Montane grasslands 

generally occur in small (<100 acres) to medium sized (100 to 1,000 acres) patches. Historic 

maintenance of the herbaceous condition in these grasslands is subject to some debate though 

appears to be primarily driven by periodic fire. The cool-season growth of Arizona fescue also 

plays a large role in maintenance of parks and openings by directly competing with ponderosa 

pine seedlings. Identification of grasslands in this region should use a combination of the TES, 

Southwest Regional GAP Analysis, and Brown and Lowe Vegetation Classification (Brown and 

Lowe 1982, TNC GIS Layer 2006) among other existing vegetation and soils data.

Prior to European settlement, pine trees were rarely established in grasslands because they were 

either outcompeted by production of cool-season grasses or killed by frequent fire (Finch 2004). 

In the late 1800s, unsustainable livestock grazing practices significantly reduced herbaceous 

cover, reducing competition pressure on pine seedlings. Coupled with the onset of fire 

suppression in the early 1900s, pine trees rapidly encroached and recruited into native grasslands 

(e.g., Moore and Huffman 2004, Coop and Givnish 2007). Plant diversity is particularly 

important in grassland ecosystems. Grassland plots with greater species diversity have been found 

to be more resistant to drought and to recover more quickly than less diverse plots (Tilman and 

Downing 1994). This resilience will become even more important in a warming climate. Pine tree 

removal, restoration of fire, and complementary reductions in livestock grazing pressure are all 

necessary to restore structure and function of native grasslands.

Desired Conditions

• Grasslands are enhanced, maintained, and function with potential natural vegetation (as 

defined by vegetative mapping units). 

• Grasslands function with a natural fire regime.

• Existing grasslands are not encroached upon by conifers.

• If treatment occurs, an equivalent number of large replacement trees remain where there 

is evidence that pre-settlement trees have grown in similar root and crown proximity to a 

particular seep or spring in the past.

Aspen Forest and Woodland

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) occurs in small patches throughout the 4FRI project area. 

Bartos (2001) refers to three broad categories of aspen: (1) stable and regenerating (stable), (2) 

converting to conifers (seral), and (3) decadent and deteriorating. Almost all of the aspen 

occurring within ponderosa pine forests of the 4FRI project area is seral aspen, which regenerates 

after disturbance through root sprouting and rarely from seed production (Quinn and Wu 2001). 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

650 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Favorable soil and moisture conditions maintain stable aspen over time. Aspen stands have been 

mapped across the entire 4FRI area and map layers are available from existing databases.

Aspen occurs within ponderosa pine forests. It is ecologically important due to the high 

concentration of biodiversity that depends on aspen for habitat (Tew 1970, DeByle 1985, Finch 

and Reynolds 1987, Griffis-Kyle and Beier 2003). In addition, stable aspen stands serve as an 

indicator of ecological integrity (Di Orio et al. 2005). Aspen is currently declining at an alarming 

rate (Fairweather et al. 2008).

The lack of fire as a natural disturbance regime in southwestern ponderosa pine forests since 

European settlement has caused much of the aspen dominated lands to cede to conifers (Bartos 

2001). Other factors contributing to gradual aspen decline over the past 140 years include reduced 

regeneration from browsing ungulates (Pearson 1914, Larson 1959, Martin 1965, Jones 1975, 

Shepperd and Fairweather 1994, Martin 2007). More recently, aerial and ground surveys indicate 

more rapid decline of aspen, with very high mortality occurring in low and mid-elevation aspen 

sites. Major factors thought to be causing this rapid decline of aspen include frost events, severe 

drought, and a host of insects and pathogens (Fairweather et al. 2008) that have served as the 

“final straws” for already compromised stands.

Desired Conditions

• Aspen forests and woodlands are conserved and restored to their appropriate fire regime.

• Aspen is effectively being regenerated or maintained, and regeneration, saplings, and 

juvenile trees are protected from browsing.

• There is decreased competition from ponderosa pine. Post-settlement ponderosa pine 

tree numbers do not exceed residual targets that have been identified using presettlement conifer tree evidences, site visitations, and collected data. 

• Removal of large trees constitutes a relatively small part of the aspen restoration effort, 

when compared to the fundamental causes of overall degradation. Aspen forests and 

woodlands are fully restored by using an array of tools that address all sources of 

degradation. 

Ponderosa Pine/Gambel Oak Forest (Pine-Oak)

A number of habitat types exist in the southwestern United States that could be described as pineoak. Ponderosa pine forests are interspersed with Gambel oak trees in locations throughout the 

4FRI area in a habitat association referred to as PIPO/QUGA (USFS 1997, USDI 1995).

In southwestern ponderosa pine forests, Gambel oak has several growth forms distinguished by 

stem sizes and the density and spacing of stems within clumps. These include shrubby thickets of 

small stems, clumps of intermediate-sized stems, and large, mature trees that are influenced by 

age, disturbance history, and site conditions (Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998, Abella and Springer 

2008, Abella 2008a). Different growth forms provide important habitat for a large number and 

variety of wildlife species (Neff et al. 1979, Kruse 1992). These include hiding cover in a 

landscape with limited woody shrub cover, cavity substrate for birds and bats, roost potential for 

bats, nest sites for birds, and bark characteristics used by invertebrates. Whether as saplings, 

shrubby thickets, or larger sized trees, oak adds a high value for wildlife in ponderosa pine 

forests.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 651

Gambel oak provides high quality wildlife habitat in its various growth forms and is a desirable 

component of ponderosa pine forests (Neff et al. 1979, Kruse 1992, Bernardos et al. 2004). 

Gambel oak enhances soils (Klemmedson 1987), wildlife habitat (Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998, 

USDI 1995, Bernardos et al. 2004), and understory community composition (Abella and Springer 

2008). Large oak trees are particularly valuable since they typically provide more natural cavities 

and pockets of decay that allow excavation and use by cavity nesters than conifers. In addition to 

its important ecological role, Gambel oak has high value to humans as it is a popular firewood 

that possesses superior heat-producing qualities compared to other tree species (Wagstaff 1984). 

Although management on public lands with regard to oak has changed to better protect the 

species, illegal firewood cutting of Gambel oak, and elk and livestock grazing negatively impact 

oak growth and regeneration (Harper et al. 1985, Clary and Tiedemann 1992). Illegal firewood 

cutting of Gambel oak continues to result in the removal of rare, large diameter oak trees 

(Bernardos et al. 2004). 

A literature review by Abella and Fulé (2008) found that Gambel oak densities appear to have 

increased in many areas with fire exclusion, especially in the small and medium diameter stems 

(<8-inch d.b.h.). Chambers (2002) found that Gambel oak on the Kaibab and Coconino NFs was 

distributed in an uneven-aged distribution, dominated by smaller size classes (<5 centimeter 

d.b.h.) and few large diameter oak trees. Because of Gambel oak’s slow growth rate, there may be 

little opportunity for these small Gambel oak trees to attain large diameters (>85 centimeters) 

(Chambers 2002). 

Pine competition with oak has been identified as an issue in slowing oak growth, particularly for 

older oaks (Onkonburi 1999). Onkonburi (1999) also found that for northern Arizona forests, pine 

thinning increased oak incremental growth more than oak thinning and prescribed fire. Fulé 

(2005) found that oak diameter growth tended to be greater in areas where pine was thinned 

relative to burn only treatments and controls. Thinning of competing pine trees may promote 

large oaks with vigorous crowns and enhanced acorn production (Abella 2008b), and may 

increase oak seedling establishment (Ffolliott and Gottfried 1991). 

Desired Conditions

All Gambel Oak

• Small oak trees develop into larger size classes.

• Fire treatments retain small and shrubby oak in numbers and distribution. 

• All growth forms of Gambel oak are present and larger, older oak trees are enhanced and 

maintained.

• Large, post-settlement trees are not restricting oak development.

• Frequent, low intensity surface fire occurs in ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests.

• Brushy thicket, pole, and dispersed clump growth forms of Gambel oak are present and 

maintained by allowing natural self-thinning, thinning dense clumps, and/or burning. 

• Gambel oak growth forms are protected from damage during restoration treatments 

including thinning and post-thinning slash burning. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

652 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

In MSO Restricted Habitat

• Within MSO habitat and designated critical habitat, the recovery plan for the MSO 

improves key habitat components and primary biological factors, which includes 

Gambel oak.

• Within 30 feet of oak 10- inch d.r.c. or larger, post-settlement mixed conifer trees up to 

18-inch d.b.h. (that do not have interlocking crowns with oak) are not restricting oak 

development. 

Outside MSO Restricted Habitat

• Large post-settlement trees’ drip lines or roots do not overlap with those of Gambel oak 

trees exhibiting >8 inch d.r.c.

Within-stand Openings 

Within-stand openings are small openings (generally 0.05 to 1.0 acres) that were occupied by 

grasses and wildflowers before settlement (Pearson 1942, White 1985, Covington and Sackett 

1992, Sánchez Meador et al. 2009). For the purposes of this strategy, within-stand openings are 

equivalent to interspaces. The within-stand opening management approach described below is 

distinct from, and should not be considered as guidance relating to regeneration openings. 

Pre-settlement openings can be identified by the lack of stumps, stump holes, and other evidence 

of pre-settlement tree occupancy (Covington et al. 1997). These openings are most pronounced 

on sites with heavy textured (e.g., silt-clay loam) soils (Covington and Moore 1994). Current 

openings include fine-scaled canopy gaps. It is not necessary to have desired within-stand 

openings and groups located in the same location that they were in before settlement (the site 

fidelity assumption). Trees might be retained in areas that were openings before settlement, and 

openings might be established in areas which had previously supported pre-settlement trees.

Within-stand openings appear to have been self-perpetuating before overgrazing and fire 

exclusion (Pearson 1942, Sánchez Meador et al. 2009). Fully occupied by the roots of grasses and 

wildflowers as well as those of neighboring groups of trees, these openings had low water and 

nutrient availability because of intense root competition (Kaye et al. 1999). Heavy surface fuel 

loads insured that tree seedlings were killed by frequent surface fires, reinforcing the competitive 

exclusion of tree seedlings (Fulé et al. 1997).

These natural openings appear to have been very important for some species of butterflies, birds, 

and mammals (Waltz and Covington 2004). Often the largest post-settlement trees, typically a 

single tree, became established in these natural within-stand openings as soon as herbaceous 

vegetation was removed by overgrazing (Sánchez Meador et al. 2009). Contemporary withinstand openings or areas dominated by smaller post-settlement trees should be the starting point 

for restoring more natural within-stand heterogeneity. 

Desired Conditions

• The pattern of openings within stands that provide natural spatial heterogeneity for 

biological diversity are conserved.

• Openings break up fuel continuity to reduce the probability of torching and crowning 

and restore natural heterogeneity within stands. 
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 653

• Openings promote snowpack accumulation and retention which benefits groundwater 

recharge and watershed processes at the fine (1 to 10 acres) scale. 

• The presence of such trees does not prevent the reestablishment of sufficient withinstand openings to emulate natural vegetation patterns based on current stand conditions, 

pre-settlement evidences, desired future conditions, or other restoration objectives. 

• Groups of trees typically range in size from 0.1 acre to 1 acre. Canopy gaps and 

interspaces between tree groups or individuals are based on site productivity and soil 

type and range from 10 percent on highly productive sites to as high as 90 percent on 

those soil types that have an open reference condition.

• Suitable openings for successful natural regeneration in this project would range in size 

from 3/10 to 8/10 of an acre. 

Heavily-Stocked Stands (with High Basal Area) 

Generated by a Preponderance of Large, Young Trees

In some areas, the increase in post-settlement trees has been so rapid that current stand structure 

is characterized by high density and high basal area in large, young ponderosa pine trees. These 

stands or groups of stands exhibit continuous canopy which promotes unnaturally severe fire 

effects under severe fire weather conditions. At the fine scale, the management approach would 

apply on a case-by-case basis. The cutting of large trees may be necessary to meet site-specific 

ecological objectives as listed below. For example, the cutting of large trees may be necessary in 

order to reduce the potential for crown fire to spread into communities or important habitats that 

include MSO and/or goshawk nest stands. This approach would apply when other options would 

not alleviate severe fire effects.

In stands where pre-settlement evidences, restoration objectives, community protection, or other 

ecological restoration objectives indicate much lower tree density and basal area would be 

desirable, large post-settlement pines may need to be removed to achieve post-treatment 

conditions consistent with a desired restoration trajectory. Where evidence indicates higher tree 

density and basal area would have occurred pre-settlement, only a few large pines may need to be 

removed. Many of these areas would support crown fire and, thus, require structural modification 

to reduce crown fire potential and restore understory vegetation that supports surface fire.

Desired Conditions

• Natural heterogeneity of forest, savanna, and grasslands occurs at the landscape scale 

and within stands. 

• Groups are restored by retaining the largest trees on the landscape to reestablish old 

growth structure in the shortest timeframe possible.

• Decreased shading and interception from the canopy, decreased needle litter and duff, 

and surface fire restore and maintain a mosaic of natural vegetative communities.

• Decreased shading and interception from the canopy fuels allow the growth of 

continuous herbaceous surface fuels to carry surface fire.

• Reduced horizontal and vertical canopy fuels reduce the potential for crown fire. 

• Fire is the principle regulator of forest structure over time.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

654 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Regeneration openings that contribute to the ecological objective of natural 

heterogeneity of historical forest structure and age class diversity are not encroached 

upon by trees. 

Section E – Density Management and the 

Relationship Between Treatment Intensity, Tree 

Group Density, and Overall Average Density

Table 140. Section E the relationship between treatment intensity, tree group density, and 

overall average density

Treatment 

Intensity

Percent of Area Percent of Treed Area Avg. Group BA to Achieve 

Overall BA of:

Interspace Tree Groups and 

Individuals Regeneration 40 50 60 70 80 90

10–25 10 90 90 0 56 67 78 89 100

85 5 59 71 82 94

80 10 63 75 88 100

75 15 67 80 93 107

70 20 71 86 100 114

15 85 85 0 59 71 82 94 106

80 5 63 75 88 100

75 10 67 80 93 107

70 15 71 86 100 114

65 20 77 92 108 123

20 80 80 0 63 75 88 100 113

75 5 67 80 93 107

70 10 71 86 100 114

65 15 77 92 108 123

60 20 83 100 117 133

25–40 25 75 75 0 67 80 93 107 120

70 5 71 86 100 114

65 10 77 92 108 123

60 15 83 100 117 133

55 20 91 109 127 145

30 70 70 0 71 86 100 114 129

65 5 77 92 108 123

60 10 83 100 117 133

55 15 91 109 127 145
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 655

Treatment 

Intensity

Percent of Area Percent of Treed Area Avg. Group BA to Achieve 

Overall BA of:

Interspace Tree Groups and 

Individuals Regeneration 40 50 60 70 80 90

50 20 100 120 140 160

35 65 65 0 77 92 108 123 138

60 5 83 100 117 133

55 10 91 109 127 145

50 15 100 120 140 160

45 20 111 133 156 178

40–55 40 60 60 0 67 83 100 117 133 150

55 5 73 91 109 127 145

50 10 80 100 120 140 160

45 15 89 111 133 156 178

40 20 100 125 150 175 200

45 55 55 0 73 91 109 127 145 164

50 5 80 100 120 140 160

45 10 89 111 133 156 178

40 15 100 125 150 175 200

35 20 114 143 171 200 229

50 50 50 0 80 100 120 140 160 180

45 5 89 111 133 156 178

40 10 100 125 150 175 200

35 15 114 143 171 200 229

30 20 133 167 200 233 267

55–70 55 45 45 0 89 111 133 156

40 5 100 125 150 175

35 10 114 143 171 200

30 15 133 167 200 233

25 20 160 200 240 280

60 40 40 0 100 125 150 175

35 5 114 143 171 200

30 10 133 167 200 233

25 15 160 200 240 280

20 20 200 250 300 350
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

656 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Treatment 

Intensity

Percent of Area Percent of Treed Area Avg. Group BA to Achieve 

Overall BA of:

Interspace Tree Groups and 

Individuals Regeneration 40 50 60 70 80 90

65 35 35 0 114 143 171 200

30 5 133 167 200 233

25 10 160 200 240 280

20 15 200 250 300 350

15 20 267 333 400 467

Note: Red fill indicates red SDI zone for all diameters. Red zone group BA ranges from 125 BA for 8-inch QMD to 

195 BA for 24-inch QMD. 

* Average Group Basal Area (BA) to achieve overall BA.
Appendix D – Alternative B through D Implementation Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 657

Figure 74. Section E density management and stocking guidelines

Grp QMD 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195

8 158 172 186 200 215 229 243 258 272 286 301 315 329 344 358

9 125 136 147 158 169 181 192 204 215 226 238 249 260 272 283 294

10 101 110 119 128 138 147 156 165 174 183 193 202 211 220 229 238 248 257

11 83 91 99 106 114 121 129 136 144 152 159 167 174 182 189 197 205 212 220

12 70 76 83 89 96 102 108 115 121 127 134 140 146 153 159 166 172 178 185 191

13 60 65 71 76 81 87 92 98 103 109 114 119 125 130 136 141 147 152 157 163 168

14 51 56 61 66 70 75 80 84 89 94 98 103 108 112 117 122 126 131 136 140 145 150

15 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 86 90 94 98 102 106 110 114 118 122 126 130

16 39 43 47 50 54 57 61 65 68 72 75 79 82 86 90 93 97 100 104 107 111 115 118

17 35 38 41 44 48 51 54 57 60 63 67 70 73 76 79 83 86 89 92 95 98 102 105 108

18 31 34 37 40 42 45 48 51 54 57 59 62 65 68 71 74 76 79 82 85 88 91 93 96 99

19 28 31 33 36 38 41 43 46 48 51 53 56 58 61 63 66 69 71 74 76 79 81 84 86 89 91

20 25 28 30 32 34 37 39 41 43 46 48 50 53 55 57 60 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 83

21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 67 69 71 73 75 77

22 21 23 25 27 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 64 66 68 70 72

23 19 21 23 34 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47 49 50 52 54 56 57 59 61 62 64 66

24 18 19 21 22 24 26 27 29 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 53 54 56 57 59 61 62

Color coding key: 

Green = SDI zones 1 and 2 (15 to 35% of maximum SDI). This is considered the lower range of stocking. 

Yellow = SDI zone 3 (36 to 45% of maximum SDI). This is considered the middle range of stocking. 

Orange = SDI zone 3 (46 to 55% of maximum SDI). This is considered the upper range of stocking.

Red = SDI zone 4 (56% + of maximum SDI). Tree groups will not be managed within this zone.

Note: SDI "zones" are explained in the silviculture report.

TPA by QMD and BA:

Grp BA

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 659

Appendix E – Alternative B Through D 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

Introduction

Only key summaries from the comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management plan are 

included in the DEIS. Most details related to the multiparty monitoring plan have not been 

included in this summary. Multiparty monitoring is intended to meet the requirements of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This plan outlines who comprises the multiparty 

monitoring group and how the group works together to determine how data is collected, who will 

collect the date, where monitoring would occur, and how much monitoring will cost. The 

complete document can be accessed on the 4FRI Web site or in the project record.

The goal of this document is to (1) meet the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

(CFLRP) requirements for multiparty monitoring, (2) provide guidance for measuring physical 

and biophysical, social, and economic results of restoration activities across the initial 4FRI 

analysis area, and (3) provide a feedback mechanism that supports adaptive management. The 

information gained through monitoring would contribute to the science and practice of ecosystem 

restoration. In some cases, the results of this monitoring may not provide definitive answers to 

monitoring questions. 

Types of Monitoring 

Ecological monitoring is generally undertaken to determine whether the current state of the 

system matches or is trending toward some desired condition (Noon 2003). When conducted 

systematically, monitoring can provide valuable feedback regarding the effects of land 

management on resource conditions (Palmer and Mulder 1999, Lindenmayer and Likens 2010). 

Monitoring activities related to land management can be further classified into three categories: 

implementation, effectiveness, and validation (Busch and Trexler 2003). In addition to land 

management monitoring, monitoring is required per section 3 of the Comprehensive Forest 

Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Act (PL 111-11, Sec 4001, Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009). 

Implementation monitoring is designed to determine the extent to which a management action 

was carried out as designed (did we do what we said we were going to do). 

Effectiveness monitoring tracks the extent to which the management action achieved its ultimate 

objective. Effectiveness monitoring refers to an assessment of treatment effects, rather than to 

measuring whether they were applied as intended or whether they validate a pre-existing concept 

(e.g., did we increase heterogeneity).

Validation monitoring assesses the degree to which underlying assumptions about ecosystem 

relationships are supported (Block et al. 2001, Busch and Trexler 2003). Validation monitoring is 

most closely associated with research.

CFLR Act monitoring and reporting (required monitoring and reporting) includes: (1) a 

description of all acres treated and restored through projects implementing the strategy; (2) an 

evaluation of progress, including performance measures and how prior year evaluations have 

contributed to improved project performance; (3) a description of community benefits achieved, 

including any local economic benefits; and (4) the results of multiparty monitoring, evaluation, 
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

660 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

and accountability process. Items 1 through 3 are compiled locally and sent to the USDA Forest 

Service’s Washington Office as part of the annual reporting requirement. 

Monitoring Prioritization

Though financial resources (both Forest Service and stakeholder contributions) would be 

dedicated to monitoring, budgetary limitations would dictate how much and what type of 

monitoring can be accomplished. In order to help prioritize what monitoring would be 

accomplished, we prioritized monitoring using a tiered system (table 141). Tier 1 monitoring 

would take priority over Tier 2 and prioritization within each tier is expected. Research is 

independent of monitoring, will require funds in addition to this monitoring plan, and Forest 

Service approval may be required before research is initiated. However, the results of research 

would be considered during implementation and the adaptive management phase of the project. 

Table 141. Monitoring plan tiers

Monitoring 

Tier

Priority for 

Completion

Who Will 

Complete

Type of 

Monitoring Type of Funding

Tier 1 1 FS – Contractor Implementation Appropriated, 

Implementation

Tier 2 2 Multiparty

FS

Stakeholders

Agency Partners

Effectiveness Appropriated, 

Implementation, Partner

Tier 3 3 Multiparty

FS

Stakeholders

Agency Partners

Effectiveness Implementation, Partner

Research No priority. Occurs 

as approved by 

forest supervisors. 

Research Advocate Implementation, 

Process, 

Effectiveness,

Validation

Research Advocate,

Partner

Monitoring Scales

Table 142 provides monitoring scales for the project. There are three sets of scales: scales

designed to incorporate work completed by the 4FRI stakeholders, scales utilized in the EIS, and 

scales that tier directly to the forest plans. The stakeholder developed scales are intended to 

answer specific questions they may be interested in, the EIS scales are designed to provide 

information on movement toward the purpose and need, and the forest plan scales are designed to 

provide forestwide information that can be utilized in forest plan monitoring. 

The scales developed by the stakeholder reflect the landscape strategy approach, which would 

monitor at the fine scale (group/site), at the mid-scale (site, treatment area), and at the landscape 

scale (treatment area, firescape, analysis area, and landscape). 

For this analysis, the fine scale is the group or site, the mid-scale is the restoration subunit, and 

the landscape scale is the restoration unit and/or project area. These scales are typical of those 

used in forest management.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 661

Table 142. Monitoring scales

Size (acres)

4FRI Stakeholder 

Landscape Strategy 

Scale

4FRI Coconino and 

Kaibab NF EIS

Coconino and Kaibab 

NF Forest Plans

<1 Group Fine/Small

1–10 Site Fine/Small

10–100 Site Fine/Small

100–1,000 Site Midscale

1,000–10,000 Treatment Area Sub-unit

10K–100,000 Treatment Area /Firescape Restoration Unit Landscape

100k–1,000 K+ Firescape, Analysis Area, 

Landscape

Analysis Area Landscape

Monitoring Questions and Indicators

Quantitative measures have been used wherever possible, but many of the desired conditions are 

qualitative and generalized. As specific treatment-level desired conditions are developed, more 

specific monitoring methods may be incorporated. Scales of measurement in space (scale) and 

time (frequency) are proposed. Wherever feasible, monitoring is proposed at scales that are large 

enough to match the landscape approach of the project. For many variables, this could mean 

using landscape-scale, remotely-sensed data to gather comprehensive information, coupled with 

adequate ground sampling to verify image classification, develop predictive models, and measure 

variables that cannot be detected remotely. A very rough estimate of costs has been applied to 

some of the suggested indicators, but more detailed cost estimation would be needed as the 

monitoring designs become more specific. 

Please note that desired conditions are grouped by theme (e.g., conservation of biological 

diversity) rather than by scale. Duplicative desired conditions were combined. Monitoring 

indicators and their associated details have been presented where possible. In some cases, the 

desired conditions are relatively general, context-dependent, related to policy or implementation 

rather than effectiveness or aspirational in nature. These cases are indicated with a combined 

single column that describes the issues associated with monitoring movement toward the desired 

condition. Table 143 is the implementation monitoring plan. Monitoring questions are largely 

grouped by treatment type or objective. 

Table 144 displays the effectiveness monitoring plan. Additional monitoring questions that do not 

correspond directly to desired conditions are listed in appendices II to IV of the comprehensive 

plan (see project record). Table 145 displays effectiveness monitoring with specific trigger point 

and potential corrective actions related to various project elements.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management refers to a “rigorous approach for learning through deliberately designing 

and applying management actions as experiments” (Murray and Marmorek 2003). Monitoring of 

alternative management actions provides the data for the adaptive management process. As a 

result of comparing monitoring results to the predicted outcomes, the plan provides a roadmap for 
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

662 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

adjusting actions or applying new science as long as the anticipated effects are within the scope of 

impacts analyzed and disclosed in the EIS and record of decision (ROD). Some of the 

effectiveness monitoring objectives have adaptive management actions that would be taken if the 

established thresholds are reached or exceeded. Alternatives B, C, and D have specific adaptive 

management actions for springs, channels, and roads that have been made part of the alternative 

(see DEIS chapter 2).
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 663

Table 143. Implementation monitoring questions, indicators, frequency of measurement, data source, and cost

Monitoring Questions Derived from 

Desired Condition Monitoring Indicator Frequency of Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Are ponderosa pine restoration treatments 

occurring within the project area?

Acres thinned /green tons removed, acres 

prescribed burned

Reported annually Sale administration, USDA FS database of 

record/RU, forest/thinning cost calculation is 

determined by location of treatments and amount 

of service work completed; fire is calculated by 

individual fire and averaged by fire type.

Were mechanical treatments designed in 

accordance with the silvicultural 

implementation guide (see project 

implementation plan)?

Acres of treatment by treatment type (see 

project implementation plan for metrics) 

Reported annually Sale administration, USDA FS database of 

record/RU, forest/cost calculation are actual 

average cost for all grassland, oak, and aspen 

treatments by restoration unit.

Did treatments designed to naturalize 

nonsystem roads occur and were they 

implemented in accordance with design 

features, BMPs, and mitigation measures? Were 

adaptive actions utilized (alternative C)?

Miles of road effectively closed to motor 

vehicle traffic

Reported annually Sale administration/RU/average cost of each 

treatment type by miles of actual treatment.

Did mechanical treatment and prescribed fire 

actions minimize soil loss and maintain long 

term soil productivity in compliance with forest 

plan standards?

Did channel restoration treatments occur and 

were they implemented in accordance with 

design features, BMPs, and mitigation 

measures? Were adaptive actions utilized 

(alternative C)?

Miles and acres of channel restored Reported annually Sale administration, database of record 

RU/average cost per mile and acre.

Did treatments in MSO habitat occur and were 

they implemented in accordance to the project 

biological opinion?

Acres thinned/green tons removed, acres 

prescribed burned, acres burned in 

managed fire

Reported annually Sale administration, USDA FS database of 

record/ RU, forest/thinning cost calculation is 

determined by location of treatments and amount 

of service work completed, fire cost is calculated 

by individual fire and averaged by fire type.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

664 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Monitoring Questions Derived from 

Desired Condition Monitoring Indicator Frequency of Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Were design features and mitigation followed 

and forest plan requirements met for threatened, 

endangered, sensitive species?

Reported annually

Did actions minimize impacts to water 

resources in a manner that adheres to the Clean 

Water Act and the intergovernmental agreement 

between the Forest Service Southwestern 

Region, and the ADEQ?

Reported annually

Did actions minimize the spread of noxious 

weeds in compliance with the forest plans 

(noxious weeds and special area guidance), 

FSM direction for noxious weeds and special 

areas (FSM 2090), FSM 2670 direction for 

sensitive plants, and the 1995 Arizona Bugbane 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the 

Coconino and Kaibab NFs?

Did actions adequately protect Bebb’s willow 

from fire and ungulate use in spring and 

riparian areas?

Did actions minimize old and large tree 

mortality?

Did actions result in acceptable old growth 

mortality in areas of concern (snags with known 

nests or roosts for herons, eagles, osprey, or 

other raptors and specific areas of old growth)?

Did actions prevent damage or loss of 

infrastructure including historic range 

monitoring sites and allotment and pasture 

fences?
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 665

Monitoring Questions Derived from 

Desired Condition Monitoring Indicator Frequency of Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Were planned prescribed fires coordinated with 

neighboring forests and other affected agencies 

and communities?

Did emission mitigation techniques minimize 

smoke impacts to sensitive targets and Class 1 

airsheds and meet ADEQ requirements?

Did actions result in reduced crown fire 

potential and movement toward FRCC 1?

Were scenery design features and mitigation 

measures incorporated into mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments?

Were cultural resource protection and 

mitigation measures incorporated into 

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, and 

were the requirements of the Section 106 

compliance report and the heritage protocol 

met?

Cultural resource sites protected Post-project/task 

order review

Sale administration, USDA FS database of 

record, inspections by archaeologists
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

666 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 144. Landscape-scale effectiveness desired conditions, indicators, frequency of measurement, data source, and cost

Effectiveness Monitoring Desired 

Conditions

Monitoring Indicator

(Tier 1, Tier 2)

Frequency of 

Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Conservation of Biological Diversity 

Ponderosa pine ecosystems provide the 

necessary composition, structure, abundance, 

distribution, and disturbance processes that 

contribute to the diversity of native plant and 

animal species at the project landscape scale.

Tier 1: Landscape-scale coverage of forest 

variables: composition, structure, spatial 

pattern

Annually Remote sensing (RS) verified by ground 

sampling/landscape scale/RS data are free but 

analysis is $15,000 per event, ground plots 

$2,000 per plot to install, $1,000 per plot remeasure.

Ponderosa pine ecosystems are composed of 

all age and size classes within the analysis 

area and are distributed in patterns consistent 

with the natural range of variability.

Tier 1: Age Structure: tree diameter 

distribution (note that d.b.h. is only a surrogate 

for age)

Immediately posttreatment and 

every 5 years

Remote sensing verified by ground sampling 

of tree point or canopy area pattern 

(maps)/landscape scale/RS data are free, 

ground plots $40,000 to develop spatial 

model; analysis $5,000 per event. 

Ponderosa pine ecosystems are heterogeneous 

in structure and distribution at the analysis 

area. Openings and densities vary within the 

analysis area to maintain a mosaic appropriate 

to support resilience of individual trees and 

groups of trees.

Tier 1: Spatial pattern of tree groups (requires 

specific thresholds for spatial statistics) using 

Ripley’s K and/or Getis/Ord

Immediately posttreatment and 

every 5 years

Remote sensing verified by ground sampling 

of tree point or canopy area pattern 

(maps)/landscape scale/RS data are free, 

ground plots $40,000 to develop spatial 

model; analysis $5,000 per event Tier 1: Canopy openness – percent and 

characteristics of openings

NFMA stocking requirements Tier 1: Stocking requirements are met in acres 

managed for regeneration. If the areas do not 

meet desired stocking after 5 years, conditions 

that are inhibiting regeneration will be 

identified and remedial action may be 

prescribed to ensure regeneration.

At 5 years Walk-through reforestation certification exam 

at year 5 post treatment/RS data are free, 

ground plots $40,000 to develop spatial 

model; analysis $5,000 per event. 

Natural and prescribed fires support diverse 

native understory communities and their 

associated biodiversity. Understory vegetation 

composition and abundance are consistent 

with the natural range of variability.

Tier 1: Understory vegetation diversity 

(percent change in cover/bare ground, percent 

change in high-risk invasive species)

Every 5 years Ground plots/stand scale/sample strategically 

to minimize cost, ground plots $2,000 per plot 

to install, $1,000 per plot re-measure. 
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 667

Effectiveness Monitoring Desired 

Conditions

Monitoring Indicator

(Tier 1, Tier 2)

Frequency of 

Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Forest conditions facilitate species’ movement 

to and from adjacent landscapes, ecosystems, 

or habitats.

Tier 1: Spatial analysis of patches (patch area, 

density, size distribution), corridors, 

fragmentation, model movement

Every 10 years Nearest neighbor distance distribution, 

Contagion, Simpson’s Diversity, and 

Evenness Indices

Remotely sensed data/landscape scale/RS data 

are free, ground plots $40,000 to develop 

spatial model. Analysis $5,000 per event.

Tier 2: Songbird species richness: 

presence/absence Jackknife 2, Chao 2, ICE 

Species Richness Estimator

Immediately posttreatment and 

every 2 years 

thereafter

Ecosystem Resilience

A majority of the ponderosa pine ecosystems 

supports frequent, low-intensity fire.

Post-treatment fuel measurements (CBD, 

CBH, acres with crown fire potential, acres 

with surface fire potential, acres of FRCC 1 to 

FRCC 3)

Annually No numbers provided.

Water and Air Resources

Soil productivity, watershed function, and air 

quality are not at risk of being degraded by 

uncharacteristically severe disturbances (e.g., 

landscape-scale, high-severity fire).

FRCC reporting Annually No numbers provided.

Springs and associated streams and wetlands 

have the necessary soil, water, and vegetation 

attributes to be healthy and functioning at or 

near potential. Waterflow patterns, recharge 

rates, and geochemistry are similar to historic 

levels and persist over time. Water quality and 

quantity is maintaining native aquatic and 

riparian habitat and water for wildlife. 

Designated beneficial uses are consistent with 

water rights and site capability. Plant 

distributions and occurrences resilient to 

natural disturbances. Associated soils are in 

satisfactory condition.

Tier 1: 

Changes to the extent of soil saturation or 

standing water are apparent, taking into 

consideration the setting and site potential.

Changes to the abundance and extents of 

plants that are obligate wetland and/or 

facultative wetland species, taking into 

consideration the setting and site potential

Changes to the site that indicate management 

induced sediment delivery to springs and 

associated streams and wetlands that indicate 

soil erosion above tolerance thresholds

Every 5 years Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: Level 1 

Inventory Field Guide, Inventory Assessments 

for Field Planning. (Gen. Tech. Report WO86a). pgs. 35-103.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

668 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Effectiveness Monitoring Desired 

Conditions

Monitoring Indicator

(Tier 1, Tier 2)

Frequency of 

Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Exclosure fencing is protecting the site from 

adverse impacts caused by ungulate 

herbivores.

Emissions factors, smoldering and smoke 

residence are reduced as fires burn more grass 

and less green or woody biomass over time.

Smoke emissions by acres burned Annually No numbers provided

Economics

The byproducts of mechanical forest 

restoration offset the costs of treatment 

implementation. The average net cost of 

treatment per acre is significantly reduced 

over the 10-year period.

Exchange of goods for services contract 

reporting

Annually No numbers provided.

The economic value of ecosystem services 

provided by restored forests are realized and 

reinvested to support forest restoration and 

ecosystem management.

Exchange of goods for services contract 

reporting

Annually No numbers provided.

Rural communities receive direct and indirect 

economic benefits.

CFLR business model report No number 

provided

No number provided.

Sufficient harvest and manufacturing capacity 

exists to achieve restoration of at least 300,000 

acres in the next 10 years.

Estimate of harvesting and utilization capacity Every 5 years Government records, inference from response 

to contracts, expert opinion.

Social Systems

There is broad public support or acceptance of 

collaboratively-based forest restoration 

decisions, processes, and outcomes, including 

the use of fire as a management tool.

Public support/concerns assessed 1. Pre- and posttreatment

2. Pre- and posteducation/outreach 

program delivery

Interviews with land managers and focus 

groups with community members to assess 

specific issues and concerns, used to develop 

telephone survey questions/data analyzed: 

short-term: within analysis area; long-term: 

across the four forests/$30,000 each pre- and 

post-measures per analysis area.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 669

Effectiveness Monitoring Desired 

Conditions

Monitoring Indicator

(Tier 1, Tier 2)

Frequency of 

Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

Social values and recreational opportunities 

are protected or enhanced through forest 

restoration activities.

Social values and recreational opportunities 

assessed

1. Pre- and posttreatment

2. Pre- and posteducation/outreach 

program delivery

Targeted focus groups (two per organization) 

aimed at specific user groups (hunters, hikers, 

ORV, etc.) and/or telephone survey with 

general public/Data analyzed: short-term: 

within analysis area; long-term: across the 

four forests/Focus groups: $5,000 to $10,000 

per organization; telephone survey (cost as 

above).

Rural communities are protected from highseverity fire and their quality of life is 

enhanced through forest restoration.

1. Frequency and acreage of high-severity fire 

in and around rural communities

2. Quality of life assessed

1. As projects are 

completed around 

communities.

2. Pre- and posttreatment

3. Pre- and posteducation/outreach 

program delivery

1. USDA FS wildfire database/within analysis 

area (short-term); across the 4FRI area (longterm)/$500 per analysis area.

2. Telephone survey (cost as above).

Rural communities play an active part in 

reducing fire risk by implementing Firewise 

actions and creating defensible space around 

their property.

1. Number of households/neighborhoods that 

are implementing (the degree of) Firewise 

principles

2. Number of communities in the 

analysis/4FRI area

1. Pre- and posttreatment

2. Pre- and posteducation/outreach 

program delivery

1. Telephone survey (cost as above) 

2. Interview fire station personnel in 

neighborhood/home assessments and/or 

review fire station field.

Treatments within the analysis area minimize 

short-term impacts and enhance vegetation 

characteristics valued by forest users over the 

long term.

Forest user perceptions of treatments within 

the analysis area

1. 1 year posttreatment

2. 5 years posttreatment

Multiple field trips with forest users (random 

selection of participants to adequately 

represent general public)/analysis area/$5,000.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

670 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Effectiveness Monitoring Desired 

Conditions

Monitoring Indicator

(Tier 1, Tier 2)

Frequency of 

Measurement Data Source/Spatial Scale/Cost

There is low potential for fires to enter 

communities. Communities and homeowners 

are prepared for the undesirable case that fires 

that do enter communities.

1. Fire modeling

2. Number of households and neighborhoods 

implementing Firewise principles

1. Pre- and posttreatment in WUI 

communities

2. Pre- and posteducation/outreach 

program delivery

1. 4FRI Science and Monitoring Working 

Group/communities within analysis area

2. Telephone survey (cost as above).

3. Interview fire station personnel in 

neighborhood/home assessments and/or 

review fire station field survey logs/$2,000 to 

$5,000.

4. Number of neighborhoods certified through 

Firewise/Communities/USA/$500.

Fire management costs are reduced; 

aggressive fire suppression is unneeded or 

rare.

1. Forest Service fire suppression costs

2. Number and acreage of USDA FS 

suppressed wildfires

Every 10 years Forest Service records. National Interagency 

Fire Center records on wildfire 

occurrence/Analysis area/$1,000.

Heritage Resources

Cultural resources are not at risk of being 

degraded by uncharacteristically severe 

disturbances (e.g., landscape-scale, highseverity fire and soil erosion).

Post-treatment fuel measurements on cultural 

resource sites

As projects/task 

orders are 

completed

No numbers provided.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 671

Table 145. Effectiveness monitoring plan

Desired Condition Indicator Metric

Method and 

Sampling 

Technique

Scale

Trigger 

(Threshold Indicating

Possible Need for 

Change)

Adaptive Action

There is reduced potential for 

introduction, establishment, 

and spread of invasive 

species. Existing infestations 

are reduced.

Invasive 

plants 

Species cover Field/RS Site, SU, RU

analysis area, 

landscape 

High risk species are not 

reduced by 50% posttreatment over pre-treatment 

data within 2 years

Discontinue treatment 

until alternative 

approach is 

development

Watch list species are not 

reduced by 90% within 1 

year post-treatment

Prohibit mechanized 

harvest and/or other 

activities contributing 

to spread

Target invasive species are 

not reduced by 20 % within

5 years

Discontinue treatment 

until alternative 

approach is 

development

Cheatgrass Cheatgrass increases above 

pre-treatment condition

Discontinue treatment 

in adjacent high risk 

areas until alternative 

approach is developed

Ponderosa pine ecosystems 

provide the necessary 

composition, structure, 

abundance, distribution, and 

disturbance processes that 

contribute to the diversity of 

native plant and animal 

species including common, 

listed, rare, and sensitive 

species.

Diversity 

(wildlife 

communities)

Songbird 

species 

richness

Field (RMBO 

songbird 

surveys), RS, 

modeling

Measured at (1-

km point grid) 

site, SU, RU, 

analysis area, 

landscape

5 year decrease in closed 

canopy, open canopy, and 

pine-sage species at the 

treatment area or larger scale

Closed canopy 

species:

Increase group size for 

all treatments (based 

on ADGF experiment) 

Reduce intensity of all 

UEA 40–55 treatments

Identify 25% of 

planned UEA 40–55 

treatments and reduce 

intensity to 25–40
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

672 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Desired Condition Indicator Metric

Method and 

Sampling 

Technique

Scale

Trigger 

(Threshold Indicating

Possible Need for 

Change)

Adaptive Action

Open canopy species: 

Increase the size of 

openings in all 

treatment types

Identify 25% of 

planned UEA 25–40 

treatments and increase 

intensity to 40–55%

Pine-sage species: 

Alter timing of 

treatment to reduce 

impacts on sage. 

Delay post-treatment 

burning to allow sage 

recover.

Forest conditions facilitate 

species’ movement to and 

from adjacent landscapes, 

ecosystems, or habitats.

Changes in 

landscape 

connectivity 

and 

permeability

Movement data 

from transmitted 

black bear OR grey 

fox (to represent 

denser forest 

conditions) and 

pronghorn (to 

represent more 

open forest 

condition

RU, Landscape Restriction of bear/fox 

movements (reduced 

connectivity between patches 

of untreated, higher density, 

or pine-oak) when comparing 

pre- to post-treatment.

No increase in pronghorn 

movement when comparing 

pre- to post-treatment

Increase group size, 

decrease treatment 

intensity within known 

pathways

Increase opening 

percentage

Increase treatment 

intensity within known 

pathways

Northern 

goshawk 

Utilize existing 

framework from 

USDA FS 

National Guidelines, with 

RU, Landscape Trigger points will be 

assessed as data from Kaibab 

NF monitoring plan becomes 

available

Dependent on trigger 

points and data 

availability.
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 673

Desired Condition Indicator Metric

Method and 

Sampling 

Technique

Scale

Trigger 

(Threshold Indicating

Possible Need for 

Change)

Adaptive Action

proposed modifycations developed 

by Kaibab NF staff 

and LLECB (B. 

Dickson)

Understory vegetation 

composition and abundance 

are consistent with the natural 

range of variability.

Diversity 

(understory 

communities)

Percent cover 

native species

Field collected - 

quadrats

Site, SU, RU Within 5 years of 

mechanical treatment, 

change in cover should be 20

(+/-5)% (15–25%) above 

controls (Laughlin et al. 

2011)

If this threshold is not 

reached, then 

reevaluate treatment 

for management 

change, taking into 

account soils and burn 

treatment, e.g., reduce 

overstory basal area.

Percent bare 

soil within 

treatment 

blocks

Field collected - 

quadrats

Site, SU, RU Within 5 years of treatment 

(mechanical and/or fire), 

bare soil should comprise 

less than 30% of area 

affected by treatment.

If bare soil exceeds 

30% of area within 

plots, reevaluate 

restoration treatment 

for modification.

Seedlings and 

saplings

Field collected - 

quadrats

Site, SU, RU Within 10 years of treatment, 

seedling, and sapling density 

should be within 0.4 to 3.6 

plants/hectare/decade on 

basalt soils (Mast et al 1999)

If seedlings and 

saplings fall below this 

range across sub-units 

where regeneration is 

a desired condition, 

then evaluate 

implementation of 

BMPs to increase 

probability of 

successful 

regeneration. If 

regeneration falls 

above this range, then 
Appendix E – Alternative B through D Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

674 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Desired Condition Indicator Metric

Method and 

Sampling 

Technique

Scale

Trigger 

(Threshold Indicating

Possible Need for 

Change)

Adaptive Action

more aggressive 

prescribed burning 

may be necessary to 

reduce plant density.

A majority of the ponderosa 

pine ecosystems supports 

frequent, low-intensity fire. 

There is low potential for 

unnaturally severe fire to 

spread across the restoration 

unit.

Potential fire 

behavior

Crowning 

index, 

torching 

index, rate of 

spread

RS and 

modeling

RU % of 4FRI veg types with 

passive or active crown 

potential <25% after first 5 

years and < 10% after 10 

years.

Reevaluate potential 

causes: acres treated 

and/or treatment 

prescriptions.

Patch size of adjacent pixels 

expressing stand 

replacement fire sizes: max 

size 50 acres for first 5 years 

and max size 10 acres after 

10 years.

Cultural resources – 

implementation monitoring

Cultural 

resources 

condition 

surveys and/ or 

damages

incurred during 

implementation

Change in 

condition of 

cultural 

resources

Site visitation 

post project/task 

order 

implementation

Discovery of 

new sites during 

implementation

Cultural resource 

property 

Cultural resources damaged 

during implementation

Reevaluate potential 

causes: acres treated 

and/or treatment 

prescriptions, site 

protection measures 

implemented, site 

boundary markings
DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 675

Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable management actions and natural 

disturbances are presented here. See the project record for the comprehensive master list of all 

projects for additional information on each project. Electronic maps that display much more detail 

are available on the project’s Web site or upon request. 

Authorized Livestock Management

The information found in this section has been summarized from the range specialist report 

(Hannemann 2013). It is incorporated by reference. Livestock grazing has occurred on the project 

area at least since the 1800s. Livestock (sheep and cattle) grazing can be traced back to the 1800s 

when roads within the forests were used to drive herds between New Mexico and California. By 

the early 1890s, overgrazing had resulted in changes to understory vegetation by reducing grasses 

and forbs. By the 1970s, the forests had assigned livestock numbers to allotments and rangeland 

improvements had been put in place to improve livestock distribution and avoid overutilization 

on sensitive areas (such as riparian). In 1987 and 1988, the forests’ land management plans were 

put in place addressing grazing capacity and utilization. 

Historic range monitoring data for the project area was reviewed in 2011 (Brewer 2011). Data 

indicates cool season species increased through the 1990s in response to an increase in cool 

season moisture. In the last 10 plus years, decreased cool season moisture and increased warm 

season moisture has increased warm season species like blue grama. Today, excessive tree density 

(related to past land management practices) is causing a plant conversion to more shade tolerant 

species (such as bromes and mountain muhly). 

Timber Harvest

Information on past timber harvests is summarized from the silviculture specialist report and is 

incorporated by reference (McCusker 2013). Past timber harvest practices influenced vegetation 

structure, pattern, and composition on about 90 percent of the project area. From the late 1880s to 

the 1940s, logging that facilitated construction of the railroads was conducted by several lumber 

and timber companies in the Flagstaff and Williams area (McCusker 2013). By 1940, the 

railroads had removed all the profitable lumber that could be easily accessed. In terms of 

vegetation structure, the largest and oldest tree sizes (VSS 5 and VSS 6) were removed from the 

project area (and across the forests in general). Extensive regeneration with no large trees 

interspersed within the younger age classes became the norm. The pattern on the landscape no 

longer resembled the historic condition with historic tree groups and patch sizes ranging from 0.1 

to 0.75 acre in size and with 2 to 40 or more trees (White 1985). 

Past timber sales within the project area such as the 49’er, El Paso (1991), and Moritz sales 

(1985), all implemented prior to the Southwestern Region’s 1996 amendment of forest plans, 

targeted the harvest of medium and large diameter trees. In some cases, all trees over 12 inches in 

diameter were removed. This affected the presence of pre-settlement trees. Today, at the 

landscape (project area) scale, they are rare. 

The focus on even-aged forest management continued until the mid-1990s, leaving the legacy of 

current forest conditions. Approximately 50 percent of the project area that received some type of 

regeneration or shelterwood harvest has regenerated. Many stands are even-aged, dense, and lack 

age class diversity. Today, at least 83 percent of goshawk non-PFA habitat vegetation structural 

stage 3 (young-aged forest) and 4 (mid-aged forest) is even-aged. Approximately 74 percent of 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

676 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

the project area is classified as having moderately closed to closed tree canopies (4FRI Proposed 

Action 2011). Figure 75 displays the general location of past vegetation projects that occurred 

prior to 1996. 

Figure 75. Pre-1996 vegetation and prescribed fire projects within the project area

Post-1996 Vegetation Treatments – Uneven-aged 

Management, Fire Risk, Restoration

After the region-wide 1996 amendment, vegetation objectives included uneven-aged 

management. A review of the FACTS timber database indicates that treatments designed to 

promote uneven-aged management began being recorded in 1991 on the Kaibab NF and as early 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 677

as 1987 on the Coconino NF. However, acres treated in this category continued to be minor in 

comparison to acres treated with even-aged methods until about 2005 (McCusker 2012). 

After 1996, the objective of most vegetation projects in the project area was to reduce the risk of 

high-severity fire, improve forest health (stand and tree resilience and vigor), and improve 

understory diversity. Retention of snags and managing for coarse woody debris was further 

enhanced with the 1996 amendment and made part of project requirements. 

The 1996 forest plan amendment also changed treatments in Gambel oak and the species was 

recognized for its role in managing for ecological diversity and high quality wildlife habitat. 

From 1996 to 2000, at least seven projects (Spring Valley WUI, Upper Basin, Marteen, Ten X and 

Red Horse Mudderbach, Elk Lee, Beacon, and Parks) totaling 30,000 acres on the Kaibab NF, 

were treated with objectives including reduced fire risk, savanna and meadow restoration, oak 

improvement, improved age class structure and diversity, and to maintain industry. 

On the Coconino NF, at least 68,800 acres were planned for treatment for similar purposes (Fire 

Data FY96 to FY99, 2011). Large projects on the Coconino NF that addressed fire risk included 

Mint Spring (7,778 acres of mechanical and 12,000 acres of prescribed fire, 1998) and the A-1 

project (14,500 acres with mechanical and broadcast prescribed fire, 2000). 

With the exception of those projects that removed large, old trees and promoted even-aged 

management, most vegetation projects that contributed to the current condition within the project 

area occurred from 2000 to 2010 (or 2011 if data was available). Since 2000, most vegetation 

project objectives have included reducing fire risk to communities, improving wildlife habitat in 

sagebrush (Tusayan district, Kaibab NF) and grasslands, improving winter range wildlife habitat, 

and improving forest health and diversity (moving toward a balance of age classes, reducing 

mistletoe infection, promoting growth in old, large ponderosa pine, promoting aspen, and 

restoring ponderosa pine savanna conditions). 

On the Coconino NF, projects designed primarily to address fire risk in the project area include 

Rocky Park Fuels Reduction (13,651 acres, 2001), Kachina Village (11,029 acres, 2003), and 

Mormon Lake Fuels Reduction (2,388 acres, 2005). Similar projects on the Kaibab NF include 

Williams High Risk Precommercial Thin (756 acres, 2001), Dogtown Fuels Reduction (8,209 

acres, 2004), and Pineaire Fuels Reduction (650 acres, 2004). 

Since 2000, at least 6,149 acres have been mechanically treated and prescribed burned on the 

Kaibab NF to improve wildlife habitat, and 2,485 acres have been treated to improve/restore 

grasslands. Wildlife habitat improvement projects included Potato Hill Habitat Improvement 

Project (1,275 acres, 2003), Upper Basin Project (1,884 acres, 2000), and Moqui Antelope 

Habitat Improvement Project (2,990 acres, 2006). Grassland restoration projects included Garland 

Prairie (500 acres, 2005), Ida Grassland Restoration (1,800 acres, 2008), and Community Tank 

Grassland Restoration (185 acres, 2011). On the Coconino NF, almost 7,000 acres have been 

treated to directly improve wildlife habitat (habitat improvement was the treatment objective). 

Some of the larger projects (within the project area) on the Coconino NF designed to restore 

grasslands, woodlands, and wildlife habitats include Hart Prairie Fuels Reduction (9,815 acres, 

2010), Elk Park Fuels Reduction (11,100 acres, 2007), and the Slate Mountain Pronghorn Project 

(2,250 acres, 2010). Projects adjacent to, but outside of, the project area include the Anderson 

Mesa Project.
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

678 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Since 2000, over 13,829 acres of treatment on the Kaibab NF have focused on forest health and 

diversity objectives. Projects include Frenchy (9,319 acres of thinning that include savanna and 

meadow restoration and prescribed burning, 2003). On the Coconino, projects that addressed fire 

risk but also included restoration objectives such as meadow, riparian, and grassland restoration 

include Fort Valley (1,700 acres, 2000), Apache Maid Grass (54,528 acres, 2004), and Woody 

Ridge (8,599 acres, 2004). 

However, even some of the most recent tree thinning projects (2000 to present) have focused 

thousands of acres of treatment on the removal of the smallest trees. Some of these treatments 

were limited in order to comply with the forest plans when treating in MSO protected and 

restricted habitats. This has produced results similar to treatments conducted in the 1980s – rapid 

regeneration and high tree density. Projects that focused on removing only the smallest trees 

(usually up to 9-inch d.b.h.) were primarily focused on reducing fire risk adjacent to public areas 

such as residential areas and campgrounds. Available data was reviewed and assumptions were 

made on some projects where data was incomplete.

From 2000 to 2010 on the Kaibab NF, about 3 percent of the project area (of the 596,000 acres 

proposed for treatment) was treated in a manner that resulted in prolific regeneration. 

On both forests, vegetation projects have typically included the construction (and 

decommissioning) of temporary roads and have decommissioned roads (Fleishman et al. 2013). 

Since 2000, approximately 47 miles of temporary road have been constructed (and 

decommissioned), 251 miles of existing road have been decommissioned (117 miles on the 

Kaibab NF and 44 miles on the Coconino NF), and approximately 1 mile has been relocated to 

reduce impacts on resources. Table 146 displays projects that have influenced the existing 

condition. Figure 76 displays the general location of projects post-1996. 

Table 146. Summary of past vegetation and prescribed fire project acres (2000 to 2010)

Project Name

Year 

(NEPA 

Decision)

Treatment 

Type

Acres*

Mechanical 

/Prescribed 

Fire

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Williams High Risk 2001 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn

756/756 Williams

Potato Hill 2003 Mechanical 

treatment, lop and 

scatter

1,275/0 Williams

Frenchy 2003 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn

9,319/9,319 Williams

Dogtown 2004 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn

6,509/6,509 Williams

Clover High 2004 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn

385/385 Williams
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 679

Project Name

Year 

(NEPA 

Decision)

Treatment 

Type

Acres*

Mechanical 

/Prescribed 

Fire

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Pineaire 2004 thin and prescribe, 

pile burn

650/650 Williams

Williams Followup 

Mistletoe

2004 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn

368/368 Williams

Government 

Mountain/Coleman

2005 Mechanical 75/0 Williams

Garland Prairie 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and lop, 

pile burn

500/47 Williams

City 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and pile 

burn/ prescribed 

fire

8,667/12,400 Williams

Kendrick 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

Unknown Williams

Flag Tank 2007 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

22/36 Williams

IDA Grassland 2008 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

1,800/1,800 Williams

Bill Williams Cap 2009 thin and prescribe 

burn

10/10 Williams

Community Tank 2011 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

185/185 Williams

Upper Basin 2000 Prescribed fire 0/1,884 Tusayan

Tusayan West 2001** Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

549/850 Tusayan

Tusayan 

South/Boggy Tank

2000–2002 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

2,948/2,948 Tusayan

Ten X 2004 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

1,780/700 Tusayan

Topeka 2004 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

1,100/1,100 Tusayan

Moqui Antelope 2006 Mechanical 2,990/2,990 Tusayan
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

680 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Project Name

Year 

(NEPA 

Decision)

Treatment 

Type

Acres*

Mechanical 

/Prescribed 

Fire

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Scott 2001 Mechanical, pile, 

and prescribed fire

721/9,434 Tusayan

X Fire 2009 Mechanical 140/0 Tusayan

O’Connell < 2009 Mechanical 500/0 Tusayan

Arboretum WUI 2000 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

602/602 Flagstaff

Fort Valley 2000 Mechanical 1,700/0 Mogollon 

Rim/Flagstaff

A-1 East, West 2000 Mechanical, pile, 

and prescribed fire

5,517/8,638 Flagstaff

Rocky Park 2001 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

5,651/8,000 Flagstaff

Lake Mary 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

1,845/3,245 Flagstaff

APS Hazard Tree 2003 Prescribed fire 0/315 Flagstaff

APS Powerline 2007 Mechanical 167/0 Flagstaff

Blue Ridge 69kV 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

50/1,300 Mogollon Rim

Doney Park 69kV 2007 Mechanical 9/0 Flagstaff

Kachina Village 2003 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

3,801/2,147 Flagstaff

Apache Maid Grass 2004 Mechanical 54,528/0 Mogollon Rim

Woody Ridge 2004 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

7,987/11,184 Flagstaff

Mormon Lake 2005 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

2,388/2,388 Flagstaff

Skunk Canyon 2005 Prescribed fire 0/831 Flagstaff

Elden 2006 Mechanical 193/0 Flagstaff

Eastside 2006 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

7,819/20,197 Flagstaff
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 681

Project Name

Year 

(NEPA 

Decision)

Treatment 

Type

Acres*

Mechanical 

/Prescribed 

Fire

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

East Clear Creek 2006 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

83/14,500 Mogollon Rim

Elk Park 2007 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

1,800/3,500 Flagstaff

Little Draw Aspen 2009 Mechanical 107/0 Flagstaff

Munds Park 2009 Mechanical 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

990/2,950 Flagstaff

Slate Mountain 2010 Mechanical 2,250/0 Flagstaff

Schultz Fire BAER 2010 Mechanical (snag 

removal)

150 snags 

removed/0

Flagstaff

Acre Summary

Total mechanical/vegetation treatment acres 138,736 acres 

Total prescribed fire acres 132,168 acres 

*Some projects are still in the implementation phase. Acres included here only include acres that have been 

implemented.

**The decision for Tusayan West was 1998 and implementation was 2001.

Table 147 lists projects that are outside but adjacent to the project area.

Table 147. Summary of past vegetation and prescribed fire project acres (2000 to 2010) 

adjacent to the project area

Project 

Name

Year 

(NEPA 

decision)

Treatment Type

Acres

Mechanical/ 

Prescribed Fire

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Williams High 

Risk 

2001 Mechanical treatment 

and pile burn 

756/756 data not 

available

Williams

Potato Hill 2003 Mechanical, lop and 

scatter

1,275/0 data not 

available

Williams

Frenchy 2003 Mechanical treatment 

and prescribed fire

9,319/9,319 data not 

available

Williams

Dogtown 2004 Mechanical treatment 

and prescribed fire

6,509/6,509 data not 

available

Williams

Acre Summary

Total mechanical/vegetation treatment acres 17,859 acres

Total prescribed fire acres 16,584 acres
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

682 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 76. General locations of past projects (post-1996) within the project area

Natural Disturbances – Fire12

Information on natural disturbances (fire) is summarized from the fire ecology specialist report 

(Lata 2012) and the report is incorporated by reference. 

Most of the vegetation types on the Kaibab and Coconino NFs are adapted to the frequent, lowintensity fire that occurred periodically prior to Euro-American settlement. In fire-adapted 

 

12 Please note, the fire ecology report also considered projects outside of the project area. For this reason, 

the project list may vary.
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 683

vegetation types, ecosystem function is dependent on this regular disturbance. However, ceasing 

all fires was common practice, dating back to the late 1800s and mid-1900s. During this time, 

extensive livestock grazing consumed the abundant grasses with forest reserve management plans 

often urging heavy grazing to eliminate the herbaceous fuels that allowed surface fires to sweep 

across the land (Drake 1910). In addition to grazing, early settlers also suppressed fire to protect 

their livelihood and homes.

Organized fire suppression efforts by the Forest Service date back to the first decade of the 20th 

century, largely in response to unacceptable fire effects due to heavy slash loads left by railroad 

logging. In 1935, the Forest Service further instituted a policy that all fires were to be 

extinguished by 10 a.m. of the day following their detection (Pyne 1982). Throughout most of the 

20th century, foresters continued to extinguish all fires regardless of ignition cause, intensity, or 

degree of danger to human safety or property. Widespread fire suppression efforts continue and a 

high percentage of Federal resources are focused on suppression (Covington 2003).

As noted in the vegetation management section, without fire, understory seedlings in pine and 

mixed conifer forests had unprecedented survival rates. White fir, Douglas-fir, and even 

Engelmann spruce seedlings became established under ponderosa pine stands. Juniper and pinyon 

seedlings invaded former grassland savannas. The increase in tree density and resulting buildup 

of woody fuels led to unnaturally large and severe wildfires, insect outbreaks, and reduced 

biodiversity (Friederici 2004).

Data on wildfire acreages from 1940 to 1970 was derived from Covington 2003. Data on past 

wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 1970 to 2010 was derived from the 

project’s fire ecology specialist report. Data was compiled using a Forest Service database query, 

Fire Family Plus, for those districts of the Coconino and Kaibab NFs that are located south of the 

Grand Canyon in (largely) ponderosa pine vegetation. Acres may include portions of some 

pinyon-juniper and some mixed conifer vegetation. In addition to this data, each forest’s FACTS 

database was accessed to provide a subset of individual fires and acres for each forest (Latta 

2013). 

Table 148. Coconino and Kaibab NF wildfire acres 1940 to 2010

Time Period Project Area Wildfire 

(acres affected)

1940–1960 10,139 (Coconino NF only)

1960–1969 1,090 (Coconino NF only)

1970–1980 49,631

1981–1990 7,399

1991–2000 63,397

2001–2010 180,499

Total acres 312,155

Table 148 summarizes (estimates) acres of wildfire since 1940. Overall, wildfire has influenced at 

least 18 percent of the project area since 2001. Severe effects associated with past wildfires are 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

684 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

attributed to 20 to 30 percent (of the 18 percent) of the area burned within the project area. These 

fires affected structure, pattern, composition, and function by creating an even-aged plantationtype tree structure with grass and brush that are no longer contributing to a forested structure. The 

remaining 70 percent of fires were low- to mixed-severity fires that provided beneficial impacts. 

These events affected structure, pattern, composition, and function by returning fire—a natural 

process—to the ponderosa pine system.

As noted in table 146 and table 147, thousands of acres in and adjacent to the project area have

been (or are currently being) treated to reduce hazardous fuels. Vegetation was thinned and 

residual slash reduced/removed through various methods including machine pile and burn, hand 

pile and burn, chipping, lop and scatter, mastication, and mowing. From 2000 to 2010, at least 

56,146 acres on the Williams and Tusayan districts were treated to reduce hazardous fuels. On the 

Coconino NF, at least 83,979 acres13 were treated within the project area to address hazardous 

fuels.

Natural Disturbances – Insect and Disease

Information on natural disturbances (fire) is summarized from the silviculture specialist report 

(McCusker 2013) and the report is incorporated by reference.

The Coconino NF experienced significant bark beetle outbreaks in the mid-1920s, late 1930s, 

mid-1960s, late 1970s through early 1980s, and late 1990s through the mid-2000s. The 1950s and 

2000s outbreaks appear to be more extensive than other outbreaks, damaging at least 200,000 and 

72,000 acres, respectively. Ponderosa pine needleminer defoliated over 9,000 acres of ponderosa 

pine on the Coconino NF in 1999 (USDA Forest Service 2000). 

On the southern portion of the Kaibab NF, western pine beetle activity was reported in late 1970s 

and early 1980s. The contemporary (2000s) bark beetle outbreak is probably more severe than 

past outbreaks. Ponderosa pine mortality approached 100 percent in some stands (Gitlin et al. 

2006), but averaged only 3.4 percent in a limited number of plots distributed across Williams 

Ranger District (RD) and Tusayan RD (Negrón et al. 2009). 

Southwestern dwarf mistletoe is dispersed throughout the project area where 2 to 31 percent of 

the commercial ponderosa pine type was infected in the 1980s on the northern half of the 

Coconino NF, and 25 to 38 percent of the commercial ponderosa pine type was infected on the 

Williams district (Hessburg and Beatty 1985). 

Annual aerial surveys on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs in the summer of 2010 detected 

ponderosa pine mortality associated with bark beetles on approximately 6,500 acres within the 

project area. This mortality is most likely associated with the Ips beetle (USDA Forest Service 

“Southwestern Region Insect and Disease Conditions Report 2010”). This survey indicates a 

tenfold increase in beetle mortality from the 2008 and 2009 surveys, although bark beetle activity 

in ponderosa pine is currently considered to be at endemic levels. Preliminary results of the 2011 

survey indicate a minor reduction in ponderosa pine mortality from 2010. In pinyon-juniper 

 

13 Projects selected include those that had a hazardous fuels reduction component including Arboretum 

WUI, Fort Valley, A-1, Rocky Park, Lake Mary, Kachina Village, Woody Ridge, Mormon Lake, Skunk 

Canyon, Elden, Eastside, East Clear Creek, Elk Park, Munds Park, and Slate Mountain. Where both 

thinning and prescribed fire had been implemented, the higher, more inclusive acreage number was 

selected.
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 685

woodlands, both localized and widespread mortality events have occurred over time on the 

Coconino and south Kaibab NFs. These events have typically been pinyon Ips outbreaks 

associated with periods of drought, such as occurred in the 1950s, and more recently in the mid1990s and 2001 through 2003. 

Juniper mortality from wood borers and Phloeosinus beetles has occurred in areas of poor site 

quality within the project area during the recent drought (Mueller et al. 2005, USDA Forest 

Service 2002, 2003). Juniper mortality averaged 3.3 percent within an 80 kilometer radius of 

Flagstaff, with greater mortality on grassland versus nongrassland sites (Gitlin et al. 2006). 

In aspen, mortality has been attributed to the severity of the 1999 frost damage, severe drought 

conditions, and western tent caterpillar defoliation in 2004 and 2005. Although dying trees 

sprouted, survival has been very low due to browsing by elk. Mortality has been greatest in the 

low-elevation range. During the past 5 years, more than 50 percent of surveyed aspen sites below 

7,500 feet elevation experienced 97 percent mortality (Fairweather et al. 2008).

In summary, as agents of change, forest insects and diseases have a significant role in forest 

ecosystem dynamics. Forest insect and disease driven change alters forest ecological processes, 

forest structure, and composition. At one time or another, all of the vegetation types within the 

project area have incurred extensive damage by one or more agents (table 149). The transitory 

agents causing the most extensive and severe damage have been pinyon Ips in pinyon pine, Ips 

bark beetle species in ponderosa pine, and multiple biotic and abiotic agents in aspen. Each of the 

vegetation types shows distinct periods of increased insect damage that can be associated with 

droughts. The most extensive and damaging persistent agent is southwestern dwarf mistletoe in 

ponderosa pine. More detailed information can be found in Lynch et al. 2008a and 2008b. 

Table 149. Acres affected by insect and disease outbreaks by forest (within project area) 

Time Period Insect/Disease Type

Acres and/or Percent of Forest Affected

Coconino Kaibab

1950s Bark beetle (ponderosa pine) damage 200,000 NA

1950s Wood borers and Phloeosinus beetle 

(juniper woodland) mortality

Unquantified – described as extensive

1970s to 1980s Western bark beetle (ponderosa pine) NA Unquantified

1980s Southwestern dwarf mistletoe 

(ponderosa pine) infection 

19,773 to 306,489 

(2 to 31%)

247,169 to 375,696 

(2 to 38%)

1999 Needleminer (ponderosa pine) 9,000 NA

2000s Bark beetle (ponderosa pine) damage 72,000 NA

2000s Bark beetle (ponderosa pine) mortality 100% mortality in select 

stands

29,660 (3%)

2002–2005 Wood borers and Phloeosinus beetle 

(juniper woodland) mortality

3% mortality within 50 mile 

radius around Flagstaff*

Extensive

2005–2008 1999 frost and 2004–2005 western tent 

caterpillar defoliation (aspen) mortality

97% mortality in >50 percent of surveyed aspen 

sites below 7,500 feet (Fairweather et al. 2008).

2010 Bark beetle (ponderosa pine) mortality 6,500

*Accurate acreage number not feasible given the amount of non-FS lands included in the 50 mile radius. 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

686 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Private Property, State, and Other Agency Activities (Table 150) 

On the Kaibab NF, from 2001 to 2004, the Rural Communities Fuels Management Partnership 

thinned over 200 acres of trees on private property in the Parks, Sherwood Forest Estates, 

Williams, and Sherwood Forest Estates communities to reduce the risk of wildland fire and 

improve the forest (Kaibab NF news release, August 2004).

The Camp Navajo Army Depot borders both the Kaibab and Coconino NFs and is within the 

project area. Camp Navajo implemented thinning on 350 acres in 2011to complete post-tornado 

recovery. Additionally, treating 349 acres is foreseeable in 2012 (Camp Navajo 2012 data). 

Approximately 78,184 acres of fuels reduction treatments were conducted on State and/or private 

lands from 2000 to 2010 through the Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership (GFFP) and Arizona 

State Forestry Division cost-share program (GFFP 2010 Report). Projects are conducted within 

the 180,000-acre GFFP boundary that is within the project area. Examples of projects include 

NAU (1,893 acres), Sunset Crater (316 acres), ADGF (54,988 acres), and Flagstaff Fire 

Department (9,203 acres). Treatments were designed for the wildland-urban interface (WUI). 

Current projects include vegetation thinning and prescribed fire on approximately 100 acres of 

private property made up of 20 parcels within the GFFP boundary in 2012. 

From 2000 to 2010, the Grand Canyon NP conducted approximately 18,970 acres of prescribed 

burning along the south rim. Activities conducted in this vicinity are adjacent to the Tusayan 

district, Kaibab NF.

Foreseeable fuels reduction treatments include treating (mechanical thinning/prescribed fire) 245 

acres (5 private land parcels) in 2013, 190 acres (4 to 10 parcels) in 2014, and 100 acres of 

prescribed burning through 2014 (Flagstaff Fire Department, personal communication, February 

24, 2012). 

Table 150. Past treatments on private, State, and other federally managed lands

Years Agency/Organization Acres Treated

2000–2004 Rural Communities Fuels Management Partnership 200

2000–2010 Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership (GFFP) 78,184

2000–2010 Grand Canyon NP – South Rim 18,970

2011 Camp Navajo Army Depot 350

Total 97,704

Summary of Current and Ongoing Projects

The ongoing and current projects category focuses on those projects that have the potential to 

affect vegetation (structure, pattern, and composition), natural processes (such as fire), and 

movement toward increased forest resiliency and function. Specialists evaluated whether 

additional projects (not included in this list) are relative to their cumulative effects analysis. This 

category includes vegetation and prescribed fire projects that still have acres remaining for 

implementation.
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 687

The forests have been annually implementing a portion of the total acres specified in the NEPA 

decisions. It is typical for vegetation and prescribed fire projects to be implemented over a course 

of 1 to 10 years, depending on size and complexity. Only those acres that remain to be 

implemented are reflected in this category. Projects that included periodic (maintenance) 

prescribed fires are included in this category. The assumption for other projects such as power 

line maintenance conducted by special use permit holders is that the vegetation within the entire 

right-of-way could be maintained annually. In summary, approximately 82,592 acres of 

vegetation treatments and 97,175 acres of prescribed fire are in the current and ongoing category 

within the project area (table 151 and figure 77). Table 152 includes other projects considered.

Table 151. Current and ongoing vegetation (mechanical) and prescribed fire projects

Project Name Treatment Type

Mechanical/

Prescribed Fire 

(acres)

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Pomeroy Mechanical and prescribed fire 1,740/1,740 Williams

KA 1,050/1,050 Williams

Russell 5,000/5,000 Tusayan 

Community Tank 865/865 Williams 

Bill Williams Cap 10/10 Williams

Ten X Prescribed fire 700 Tusayan

Airport 602 Tusayan

South Williams 290 Williams

Long Jim 1,300 Tusayan

Dogtown Mechanical and prescribed fire 1,700/1,700 Williams

Twin Prescribed fire 1,400 Williams

Frenchy 6,529 Williams

Tusayan 

South/Boggy Tank

2,948 Tusayan

Tusayan East 2,600 Tusayan

Arboretum 602 Flagstaff

Woody Ridge 11,184 Flagstaff

Post-Tornado Mechanical

(tree removal)

18,756 Flagstaff and 

Mogollon Rim 

Hart Prairie Mechanical and prescribed fire 9,815/9,815 Flagstaff

Munds Park Prescribed fire 2,950 Flagstaff 

A-1 East and West 8,274 Flagstaff

East Clear Creek Mechanical and prescribed fire 1,562/4,700 Flagstaff 

Mormon Lake Prescribed fire 2,388 Flagstaff

Skunk Canyon 831 Flagstaff
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

688 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Project Name Treatment Type

Mechanical/

Prescribed Fire 

(acres)

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Eastside 20,197 Flagstaff

Power lines, oil 

and gas lines, 

natural gas/FERC, 

meter sites, gas 

compression and 

substation sites*

Right- of-way vegetation 

clearing for maintenance 

purposes and to reduce fire 

risk

30,710 Forestwide

Power lines, oil 

and gas lines, 

natural gas/FERC, 

meter sites, gas 

compression and 

substation sites*

Right- of-way vegetation 

clearing for maintenance 

purposes and to reduce fire 

risk

1,634 Forestwide

Bobs (part of 

Woody Vegetation 

project)

Mechanical and prescribed fire 2,000/2,000 Flagstaff

Clark’s (part of Elk 

Park project)

1,600/1,600 Flagstaff

Elk Park Fuels 2,900/2,900 Flagstaff

Jack Smith-Schultz 2,000/2,000 Flagstaff

Weatherford (part 

of Jack Smith 

Schultz and 

Eastside)

1,000//1,000 Flagstaff

Railroad 250 /250 Flagstaff

Summary of Acres

Total acres of vegetation treatments (including 

powerline maintenance)

82,592 acres

Total acres of prescribed fire 97,175 acres
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 689

Table 152. Current and ongoing other projects

Project Name Project Purpose Description

Forest/District

Coconino Kaibab

Treatment of 

Noxious Weeds-3 

Forests 

Direction incorporated into 

forest plans

Encompasses 

project area

Forestwide Forestwide

Firewood collection Forestwide policy Williams and 

Tusayan

Tusayan Travel 

Management

Tusayan

Williams Travel 

Management

Williams

Coconino NF Travel 

Management

Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs road 

maintenance 

Annual road maintenance 500 miles per year on each forest

Grazing Continuation of authorized 

livestock grazing

791,250 acres/80% 

of project area

47 active allotments within 

project area, see the range report 

for a complete list of allotments 

within project area 

Wildlife waters Water development 

maintenance 

24 water 

developments

Tusayan

Little Draw Aspen exclosure maintenance 107 acres Flagstaff

*The numbers in this category are for the entire permitted facility and likely include acres outside the project area. Data 

that would have been specific to the project area was not readily available.
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

690 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 77. General locations of current and ongoing projects within or adjacent to the 

project area

Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

Reasonably foreseeable projects for this analysis (table 152 and table 153, and figure 78) are 

defined as those Forest Service projects that have been listed in the forests’ schedule of proposed 

actions (SOPA). The most recent SOPA for both forests was reviewed in January 2013 (USDA 

2013). Decisions are imminent or decisions have been made and implementation is about to 

begin; or the projects are poised for implementation by other (non-FS) parties. The reasonably 

foreseeable category mostly focuses on those projects that have the potential to affect vegetation 

(structure, pattern, and composition), natural processes (such as fire), and movement toward
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 691

increased resiliency and function. Some project, such as the rock pits analysis, would not affect 

vegetation structure, spatial pattern, or composition. However, this project has been included as it 

may affect how road proposals (and their associated costs) are analyzed and implemented. 

Specialists also evaluated whether additional projects (not included in this list) would be included 

in their cumulative effects analysis. In summary:

• Approximately 86,771 acres of vegetation (mechanical) treatments and 142,869 acres of 

prescribed fire and maintenance burning would be implemented by the forests in the 

foreseeable future (within 5 years) (table 153). Table 154 displays foreseeable recreation 

projects.

• Approximately 18,552 acres of vegetation (mechanical) treatments and 19,082 acres of 

prescribed fire and maintenance burning is expected to be implemented on State, 

private, and other federally managed lands within the foreseeable future (within 5 years) 

(table 155).

• Projects that are foreseeable but located outside of the project area are displayed in table 

156. 

Table 153. Reasonably foreseeable vegetation management/ground-disturbing projects 

within and adjacent to the project area

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Aspen 

Restoration 

Project 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

402 acres 

mechanical 

and 

prescribed fire

Williams Promote aspen by removing 

conifer encroachment, using 

prescribed fire, and 

protecting with fencing

Status: analysis underway, 

decision likely in 2013 

McCracken 

Project

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

15,262 acres 

mechanical

17,337 acres. 

prescribed fire

Williams Move toward uneven-aged 

forest structure, reduce 

mistletoe, restore meadows, 

savanna, and woodlands 

Status: decision likely in 

2013 

Ten X Fire 

Planting

Post-fire 

planting and 

fencing

12 acres 

(mechanical) 

Tusayan Restore vegetation within 

815-acre high-severity burn

Status: analysis underway

Bill Williams 

Mountain 

Restoration

Mechanical, 

prescribed 

fire, roads 

11,650 acres 

mechanical 

15,200 acres 

prescribed fire 

28 miles road 

decommission 

and 23 miles 

temporary

road 

construction 

Williams Reintroduce fire, reduce 

stand densities and fire 

potential, move toward

balanced age classes, 

improve understory 

composition and productivity 

Status: analysis underway, 

decision likely in 2012
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

692 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs 

Rock Pit 

Development 

Existing pit 

expansion 

and new pit 

development 

39 pits, 229 

acres (new 

disturbance)

Forestwide Forestwide Create source of materials 

for road maintenance and 

management 

Status: analysis underway, 

decision likely in 2012

Marshall 

Fuels 

Reduction 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire 

10,800 acres 

mechanical 

and 

6,260 acres 

prescribed fire 

Flagstaff Ponderosa pine, grassland, 

meadow, and water fowl 

habitat restoration (includes 

900 acres of thinning up to 

9-inch d.b.h. in MSO 

habitat), reduce fire risk 

Status: decision made, 2012 

implementation 

Turkey/

Barney 

Pasture Forest 

Health 

Restoration 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire 

Potentially 

17,835 acres 

of mechanical 

and 

prescribed fire

Flagstaff Reduce dwarf mistletoe, 

tornado salvage, improve 

MSO habitat

Status: analysis underway, 

decision likely in 2012 

Upper Beaver 

Watershed 

Fuels 

Reduction 

(90% outside 

the project 

area) 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire 

15,807 acres 

mechanical

31,162 acres 

prescribed fire

43,906 acres 

maintenance 

burning 

Reduce fire risk within and 

outside of WUI

Status: 2,000 acres scheduled 

for 2013 implementation

Western Area 

Power 

Administration 

Flagstaff to 

Pinnacle Peak 

Mechanical 4,584 acres Flagstaff Remove trees that may 

impinge on power lines:

1,770 acres ponderosa pine, 

8 acres aspen, 10 acres 

cottonwood/willow riparian, 

25 acres wetland cienega, 35 

acres montane/subalpine 

grass, 175 acres semi-desert 

grass, 810 acres pinyonjuniper evergreen shrub, 

1,280 acres pinyon-juniper 

woodland

Status: Analysis underway, 

decision likely in 2012

Wing 

Mountain 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire, road 

decommission

10,190 acres 

mechanical 

and 

10,767 acres 

prescribed fire 

Flagstaff Restoration in ponderosa 

pine, mountain grassland, 

pine savanna, aspen and 

spring (Maxwell and Big 

Leroux) restoration, 8 miles 

of road decommission 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 693

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Acre Summary

Vegetation treatments and foreseeable ground 

disturbance

86,771 acres (86,542 (mechanical) + 229 acres (ground 

disturbance from pits) 

Prescribed fire (including maintenance 

burning)

142,869 acres

Table 154. Reasonably foreseeable recreation projects within the project area

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Kelly 

Motorized 

Trails 

Motorized 

trails

73 miles of single 

track 

(motorcycles) 

and motorized 

trail (ATV, UTV)

Flagstaff 

district

*6 miles of road to singletrack trail conversion

*25 miles of new 

construction for single track

*6 miles of user created 

trail converted to singletrack system trail

*17 miles of road converted 

to motorized trail 

*11 miles of level 2 road 

converted to motorized trail

8 miles of new motorized 

trail construction 

Mt. 

Elden/Dry 

Lake Hills 

Recreation 

No proposal 

exists at this 

time

The purpose of the project 

is to provide enhanced 

recreation opportunities, 

mitigate impacts to wildlife 

habitat, archaeological 

sites, soil, water, and 

address community 

interests.

No spatial data 

Highway 

180 

motorized 

trails

Motorized trail 

construction 

and conversion 

of user-created 

trails to 

motorized NF 

system trail in 

the White 

Horse Hills and 

Hochdeffer 

Hills area 

Potentially up to 

60 miles of 

motorized trail 

No proposed action has 

been developed at this time 

No spatial data 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

694 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 155. Other agency and private lands foreseeable vegetation and prescribed fire 

projects

Other Agency and Private Lands

Camp 

Navajo 

Westside 

Thinning 

and 

Prescribed 

Fire Project 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire 

968 acres 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire 

530 acres 

prescribed fire

only

Flagstaff Williams Improve forest health, 

reduce fire risk 

Status: 2013 implementation

Department 

of Defense 

AZARNG 

Thin and 

Burn 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

17,049 acres 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire

Ponderosa pine, pine-oak, 

and grasslands restoration to 

mitigate fire risk, provide 

diversity in forest conditions, 

improve ecosystem health, 

reduce tree density in 5-inch 

to 18-inch d.b.h. 

Greater 

Flagstaff 

Forest 

Partnership 

(GFFP) 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

535 acres 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire

Flagstaff Reduce fire risk on private 

property 

Status: implement in 2013 

and 2014

Acre Summary

Vegetation mechanical treatments 18,552 acres

Prescribed fire and maintenance burning 19,082 acres

Table 156. Other foreseeable vegetation and prescribed fire projects outside the project 

area

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Clints Well 

Forest 

Restoration 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

12,912 acres 

mechanical

(includes 10,522 

acres of WUI) 

3,987 acres no 

treatment

16,467 acres 

prescribed fire 

(includes 10,522 

acres of WUI)

Mogollon 

Rim 

Fuel reduction and 

ecosystem restoration over 

approximately 16,809 acres 

within and adjacent to the 

WUI of Clints Well 

including:

779 acres MSO PAC 

thinning <9-inch d.b.h.

3,778 acres MSO restricted 

habitat maintenance

1,043 acres MSO threshold 

habitat maintenance

412 acres goshawk PFA 

maintenance

184 acres goshawk PFA core 
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 695

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

nest area

225 acres insect and disease

529 acres timber stand 

improvement

3,448 acres uneven-aged 

development and 

2,200 acres uneven-aged 

maintenance

294 acres firewood cutting

MahanLandmark 

Forest 

Restoration

Specifics are 

unknown as 

no proposed 

action has 

been 

developed

33,747-acre project 

area 

Mogollon 

Rim 

Objectives: (1) vegetation 

structure and diversity with a 

mosaic of interspaces and 

tree groups of varying sizes 

and shapes; (2) forest 

structure with all age and 

size classes in goshawk and 

MSO habitat; (3) old age 

trees are sustained over time 

across the landscape; (4) 

improved forest health with 

reduced stand density-related 

mortality and reduced level 

of dwarf mistletoe infection; 

(5) improved vegetation 

diversity and composition in 

Gambel oak, aspen, pinyonjuniper, and grasslands; (6) 

resilient forest -reduced 

potential for undesirable fire 

behavior and its effects; (7) 

maintain a mosaic of tree 

groups and interspaces with 

frequent, low-severity fire; 

(8) springs and seeps 

function at, or near, 

potential; (9) restore 

degraded ephemeral 

channels; (10) restore select 

closed and unauthorized 

roads

69 kV 

Winslow 

Blueridge 

Construct 11 

miles of 

corridor on 

NF lands 

and 

construct a 

new 

substation in 

Blue Ridge

55 acres of 

vegetation clearing

50 acres of small 

timber products 

sale

Mogollon 

Rim 

Construct a 69 kilovolt (kV) 

transmission line to connect 

the Winslow substation in 

Winslow with a new 

substation in the Blue Ridge 

area
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

696 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Project 

Name

Treatment 

Type Metric

Forest/District Project Objective 

Summary and Status Coconino Kaibab

Grapevine 

Interconnect

9 miles of 

new 345 kV 

electric 

transmission 

line

9 miles vegetation 

removal 

Approximately 9 miles of 

new 345 kV electric 

transmission line connecting 

a new wind park located on 

Flying M Ranch private 

property and State lands to 

the existing Western Area 

Power Authority (Western) 

345 kV line

Bill Dick 

Springs 

Enhancement

No proposal 

at this time 

Unknown

No spatial data

Mogollon 

Rim 

Enhance and restore water 

availability at a currently 

developed but marginally 

functioning spring to provide 

water for livestock, bats, 

amphibians, elk, and other 

wildlife

Blue Ridge 

Community 

Fire Risk 

Reduction 

No proposal 

exists at this 

time, 

location is: 

Mogollon 

Ranch and 

Ponderosa 

Pines 

subdivision

50 acres – assume 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire

Spatial data 

created

Mogollon 

Rim 

Implement fuels reduction 

treatments in the Blue 

Ridge/Happy Jack area of 

Coconino County, AZ, about 

50 acres of subdivision lots 

(1–5 acres in size) for the 

purpose of creating 

defensible space and 

improving and protecting 

forest health.

Cinch Hook 

Rock Pit Use 

Rock 

removal 

from within 

the existing 

development 

limits

Mogollon 

Rim 

Located near the junction of 

State Highways 87 and 260 

Objective: material for road 

maintenance, administrative 

site improvements, and 

timber sale projects

Incorporated into forestwide

rock pit analysis

Allen Lake 

Restoration 

Unknown Mogollon 

Rim 

Proposed action not 

developed at this time

Pronghorn 

Habitat 

Improvements

Proposal has 

not been 

developed at 

this time

Red Rock Improve habitat for 

pronghorn 

Scoping began on 1/20/2012

Greater 

Flagstaff 

Forest 

Partnership 

(GFFP) 

Mechanical 

and 

prescribed 

fire

535 acres 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire

Flagstaff Reduce fire risk on private 

property 

Status: implement in 2013 

and 2014
Appendix F – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 697

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects 

With Insufficient Information for Analysis

The Long Valley Restoration Project (953 acres of mechanical and 706 acres of prescribed fire) 

on the Mogollon Rim is in “hold” status and no decision is expected in the foreseeable future. For 

this reason, it was eliminated from the cumulative effects reasonably foreseeable category.

The Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and Tonto NF, has no 

tangible information that would be meaningful for this cumulative effects analysis. No project 

boundary has been created, no decision has been made on the existing and desired condition of 

resources (no purpose and need for action); therefore, no specific activities have been proposed. 

For this reason, it was eliminated from the cumulative effects reasonably foreseeable category.

Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project: There are about 3,670 acres in the vicinity of Dry 

Lake Hills and Mormon Mountain that are likely to receive restoration actions in the foreseeable 

future (2013). The project is a partnership between the city of Flagstaff and Coconino NF. No 

purpose and need for action has been developed for the project; therefore, no specific activities 

have been proposed. At this time, this project has been eliminated from the cumulative effects 

reasonably foreseeable category.

Figure 78. General locations of foreseeable projects within or 

adjacent to the project area

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 699

Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

The 4FRI project would not achieve desired conditions on all treatment acres immediately posttreatment; as it would take time for the largely even-aged forests to develop uneven-aged 

structure, for trees to mature into larger diameter classes, and for tree canopies within tree groups 

to reach the desired interlocking crown condition. Because of this, there is a concern that posttreatment conditions within the 4FRI project area would not provide sufficient habitat for canopydependent wildlife in the short term.

The wildlife species of concern identified by our publics include the northern goshawk, the MSO,

Abert’s squirrel, turkey, mule deer, black bear, and some songbird species. The information 

provided in this appendix clarifies how post-treatment conditions within the 4FRI project area 

would provide habitat for canopy-dependent wildlife in the short term. We are referring to those 

areas as “bridge habitat,” suggesting that these more densely forested areas would be available to 

wildlife to bridge the time between treatment and the attainment of desired conditions across the 

broader landscape.

Bridge Habitat at the Landscape Scale

For purposes of this discussion, the landscape is considered to be the 988,764-acre 4FRI

Coconino and Kaibab NFs’ project area. To clarify where and how much bridge habitat would be 

available to canopy-dependent wildlife at the landscape scale, some review of the acreage 

categories may be helpful. Table 157 displays an accounting of project area acres in terms of what 

was considered for management actions and what was excluded from consideration under this 

EIS. All treatment area acreages are calculated based on alternative C because it is the preferred 

alternative and has the most comprehensive set of potential treatments that could impact canopydependent wildlife. 

Table 157. Acres of treatment and nontreatment areas within the 4FRI project area

Description Acres

Project Area Total area within 4FRI project boundary 988,764 

Exclusions Total excluded area within 4FRI project boundary 395,553 

Other projects 204,957 

Special management areas (wilderness, research natural areas, 

inventoried roadless areas, Camp Navajo, and experimental forests) 

29,821

Non-FS lands 145,156 

Miscellaneous (other cover types, no treatment protected activity center 

(PAC) core areas, inaccessible areas, etc.)

15,618 

Treatment Area Area within the proposed treatment boundary (includes mechanical 

treatment and prescribed burning)

593,211

Ponderosa pine treatment area 512,178 

Other cover types treatment area 81,033

At the landscape scale, there is a highly diverse mosaic of patches that would vary in terms of 

overall density and openness post-treatment. Two bridge habitat categories (“other projects” and 

“wilderness, slopes, PACs”) were analyzed at the scale of the total project area to demonstrate the 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

700 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

patch-mosaic of deferrals versus treated areas across the larger landscape. The remainder of the 

bridge habitat categories that were analyzed are at the ponderosa pine treatment area (512,178 

acres) scale. This scale was used to demonstrate how bridge habitat would persist where 

mechanical treatments and prescribed fire are proposed. The percentages provided for each 

category are not necessarily additive. Some categories are merely subsets of other categories but 

they provide several different ways of looking at how we account for closed-canopy species 

through project design.

Project Area Scale

Other projects: Excluded fuels reduction and forest restoration projects account for 204,957 

acres (21 percent) of the total project area (988,764 acres). We can assume that some proportion 

of these projects would/do retain closed-canopy conditions after treatment or remain untreated. 

The average proportion of projects that would be untreated on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs is 

roughly 37 percent, due to site-scale factors such as archaeological and historical sites, wildlife 

deferrals, funding issues, and areas with insufficient road access (Hampton et al. 2008, page 17). 

Using this estimate of 37 percent remaining untreated, we extrapolated that 8 percent (75,834 

acres) of the total project area would likely remain in deferral simply due to site-scale logistics 

and protection measures on these excluded projects. Though data were not available to arrive at 

an accurate percentage of those excluded projects that remain in deferral or closed-canopy 

condition, we assume that some proportion of this area would contribute to available habitat for 

canopy-dependent species. 

Wilderness Areas, Slopes >40 percent, and MSO PACs not identified for mechanical 

treatment: These areas have not been identified for mechanical treatment (including 81 of 99 

MSO PACs) and are generally characterized by dense forest conditions used by canopydependent wildlife. These areas account for 8 percent (79,382 acres) of the total project area.

Ponderosa Pine Treatment Area Scale

Treated areas remaining in closed (10 to 25 percent open) to moderately closed (25 to 40 

percent open) condition post-treatment: This category includes mechanically treated and 

prescribed fire only areas where post-treatment conditions maintain 60 to 90 percent forested 

cover. Included in the analysis were areas outside and within northern goshawk PFAs where posttreatment openness would be 10 to 25 percent and 25 to 40 percent, northern goshawk nest areas, 

MSO restricted and target/threshold habitats, and 18 MSO PACs proposed for mechanical 

treatment. Total acreage for this category is 213,084 or 42 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment 

area. If we only look at areas that would remain in closed condition (75 to 90 percent forested) 

post-treatment, the total acreage is 84,632 or 17 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area. 

This percentage includes all those areas listed above, but excludes areas in the 25 to 40 percent 

open category. Table 158 provides acreages by post-treatment openness within the ponderosa pine 

treatment area. Also, see figure 79. 

Table 159 provides a detailed summary of acreages and percentages for each treatment category 

within the ponderosa pine treatment area in terms of post-treatment density and contributions to 

bridge habitat. Table 159 demonstrates the patch-mosaic of denser forests (post-treatment) 

relative to areas that would be more open after treatment. The narrative following table 159 and 

figure 79 discusses habitat specific post-treatment density.
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 701

Table 158. Acres of proposed treatment in terms of post-treatment openness

Post-treatment Openness Category Acres Percent of Ponderosa 

Pine Treatment Area

Very Open 56,692 11

Open 154,524 30

Mixed (LOPFA prescribed fire only) 87,879 17

Moderately Closed 128,452 25

Closed 84,632 17

Total 512,178 100

Table 159. Post-treatment contributions to bridge habitat provided by each treatment 

designation

Treatment Post-treatment 

Density

Landscape 

Scale 

Bridge 

Habitat

Midscale 

Bridge 

Habitat

Total 

Acres

Percent of 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Treatment 

Area

Mechanical Treatment

Low Density Savanna/Grassland 

Restoration

X X 56,692 11

LOPFA 40–55% 

Interspace

X Some 141,628 28

PFA 40–55% Interspace X Some 12,895 3 

Low Density 

Total

211,252 41

Moderate 

Density

LOPFA 25–40% 

Interspace

X X 53,058 10

MSO Restricted X X 63,191 12

PFA 25–40% Interspace X X 4,800 1 

Moderate 

Density Total

121,050 24

High Density LOPFA 10–25% 

Interspace

X X 29,776 6 

PFA 10–25% Interspace X X 2,850 1 

High Density 

Total

32,626 6 

Very High MSO Target/Threshold X X 8,410 2 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

702 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Treatment Post-treatment 

Density

Landscape 

Scale 

Bridge 

Habitat

Midscale 

Bridge 

Habitat

Total 

Acres

Percent of 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Treatment 

Area

Density MSO PAC Mechanical X X 10,741 2 

Very High 

Density Total

19,151 4 

Prescribed Fire Only Areas

Low/Moderate 

Density

LOPFA Prescribed Fire 

Only

Some Some 87,879 17

Low/Moderate 

Density Total

87,879 17

Moderate/High 

Density

PFA Prescribed Fire Only X X 3,216 1 

Restricted Prescribed Fire 

Only

X X 4,187 1 

Moderate/High 

Density Total

7,403 1 

Very High 

Density

PFA Nest Area Prescribed 

Fire Only

X X 6,839 1 

Target/Threshold 

Prescribed Fire Only

X X 303 0 

Protected Prescribed Fire 

Only

X X 25,714 5 

Very High 

Density Total

32,626 6 

Grand Total 512,178 100
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 703

Figure 79. Relative, post-treatment forest density across the 4FRI project area, alternative C

MSO protected, target/threshold, and restricted habitats: These three habitat designations 

have specific guidelines per the MSO recovery plan to meet the denser forest conditions selected 

for by the owl. Within the 4FRI project, these designations could be ranked in terms of their 

forest density and, therefore, their provision of bridge habitat for other closed-canopy species. 

Protected habitat is generally densely forested, target/threshold habitat is similar to protected 

habitat, and restricted habitat is slightly less dense than protected but still more densely forested 

relative to the surrounding treated areas outside MSO designations.
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

704 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

• Protected owl habitat accounts for roughly 36,455 acres, which is 7 percent of the 

ponderosa pine treatment area (table 159, see the “MSO PAC Mechanical” and 

“Protected Prescribed Fire Only” row in the “Post-treatment Density” column). This 

designation includes 72 PACs (18 of which are proposed for some mechanical thinning) 

and slopes >40 percent. Protected owl habitat is designed to provide a multilayered, 

more closed canopy condition relative to the other habitats in the ponderosa pine 

treatment area, with an emphasis on managing for large trees (18-inch d.b.h. or greater). 

The average basal area for protected habitat, based on modeled projections for the year 

2020, is 154 square feet per acre. 

• Target/threshold habitats include those areas that meet or are approaching protected 

habitat conditions, specifically within the pine-oak vegetation type. These areas account 

for 2 percent (8,410 acres,) of the ponderosa pine treatment area (see MSO 

target/threshold row in table 159). Per the MSO recovery plan, the guideline within 

target/threshold habitats is to manage for ≥15 percent of total SDI in each of the three 

targeted ponderosa pine tree size classes (12- to18-inch d.b.h., 18- to 24-inch, and >24-

inch), and a stand average of 110 to 150 square feet per acre basal area at the stand level 

with a preponderance of large trees (≥18-inch d.b.h.).

• Restricted habitat accounts for 67,191 acres (table 159), which is 12 percent of the 

ponderosa pine treatment area. Like target/threshold, this is also specific to pine-oak in 

the 4FRI project. The guidelines for restricted habitat are less specific and operate in 

conjunction with ecosystem management and existing management guidelines. 4FRI 

objectives include managing for an abundance of ponderosa pine trees larger than 18-

inch d.b.h., maintain tree form oak, and manage for a stand average of 70 to 90 square 

feet per acre basal area at the stand level.

Northern goshawk habitat: Closed canopy conditions would also be realized within areas 

managed according to the northern goshawk guidelines. Higher tree density, canopy cover, and 

larger group sizes would be retained in the PFAs and LOPFAs where the post-treatment density 

remains high (10 to 25 percent interspace, 32,626 acres) (table 159). Denser forest structure 

would also be retained in northern goshawk nest areas, all of which have been identified as burn 

only (6,839 acres) (see the “PFA Nest Areas Prescribed Fire Only” row in table 159). Together, 

these categories account for 8 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area. In addition, PFA and 

LOPFA proposed for moderately dense condition (25 to 40 percent interspace) account for 11 

percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area (see the “Moderate Density” category in 

“Mechanical Treatment Areas” in table 159. About 41 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment 

area is LOPFA and PFA goshawk habitat proposed for low density condition (savanna/grassland 

restoration and 40 to 55 percent interspace) (table 159).

Wildlife movement corridors: Efforts were taken to ensure habitat connectivity for canopydependent wildlife at the landscape scale using data from known wildlife movement corridors for 

black bear, turkey, mule deer, and tassel-eared squirrels (AGFD 2011, figure 51). In areas where 

canopy-dependent wildlife corridors overlapped with proposed mechanical treatments, treatment 

intensities were strategically designed to leave areas with closed or moderately closed conditions 

post-treatment. In addition to areas that were already proposed to remain in at least moderately 

closed condition, roughly 4,276 acres were actively changed from a more open treatment. 

Adjusted treatment areas were located within five different wildlife movement corridors within 

the project area. This action was taken to ensure adequate retention of thermal and hiding cover 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 705

for the wildlife that depends on closed-canopy conditions for their movement across the 

landscape. (The inverse was done for open-canopy dependent wildlife corridors, where treatment 

intensities were designed to create open or very open conditions post-treatment. Open-canopy 

corridors were identified for pronghorn, Gunnison’s prairie dog, and American badger). 

In summary, there are four key considerations with regard to bridge habitat for closed-canopy 

species at the landscape scale:

1. At the project area scale, a patch-mosaic of bridge habitat would remain available for 

canopy-dependent wildlife. At a minimum, 8 percent of the project area would be in 

deferral due to wilderness, slope, and MSO untreated PACs. Potentially another 8 percent 

of the project area would be in deferral as part of other excluded projects.

2. Roughly 1 in 5 acres (22 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area) would be 

managed as MSO habitat, creating conditions that also provide bridge habitat for other 

canopy-dependent wildlife. 

3. Bridge habitat would be maintained across 42 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment 

area, despite the use of mechanical and burning treatments.

4. Project area connectivity for closed-canopy species was specifically built into treatment 

designs separately from MSO and northern goshawk guidelines. 

Bridge Habitat at the RU Scale

At the RU scale (figure 80), there are additional ways of accounting for bridge habitat. Factors 

contributing to bridge habitat at the RU scale include the area remaining in closed and moderately 

closed condition post-treatment and areas allocated for old growth.

Treated areas remaining in a closed (<25 percent interspace) to moderately closed (25 to 40 

percent interspace) condition post-treatment: Table 160 summarizes the range of posttreatment openness by RU under alternative C. (Also, see table 64 in the silviculture specialist’s 

report). Overall ranges indicate a fairly diverse condition within RUs, with openness leaning 

toward the moderately closed to closed side of the range. RU 1 has the highest percentage of posttreatment habitat in a closed condition, due in large part to ecological conditions such as soil, 

climate, and site quality that result in a denser reference condition relative to the other restoration 

units. RU 1 also contains the highest proportion of MSO habitat relative to the other RUs. Note 

that RU 3, 4, and 6 include savanna, grassland, and pine-sage habitats (e.g., Garland Prairie in RU 

3, Government Prairie in RU 4, and pine-sage in RU 6). Savanna and grassland restoration is 

based on soil characteristics and would total 56,692 acres of very open treatment. RU 5 shows a 

different distribution of habitat and this is largely based on the amount of prescribed fire only 

acres. Although some of these acres may be more open, few mechanical treatments have occurred 

in the recent past and none are proposed in this project. 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

706 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Figure 80. RU boundaries within the 4FRI project area

Table 160. Proposed post-treatment openness condition (Percent) by RU

RU Very Open Open Moderately Closed Closed 

1 10% 32% 20% 21%

3 12% 34% 41% 12%

4 18% 39% 30% 13%

5 2% 5% 87% 6%

6 0% 21% 65% 14%
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 707

Areas allocated for old growth: Desired conditions for old growth in ponderosa pine are 

provided by forest plan direction.

• 20 trees per acre at 18-inch d.b.h. and at least 180 years old, 

• one snag per acre at least 14-inch d.b.h. and 25 feet tall, 

• two down dead tree pieces 12 inches in diameter and 15 feet long, 

• basal area at least 90 square feet, and

• canopy cover of at least 50 percent. 

Old growth habitats play a crucial role for many wildlife species in ponderosa pine forests. The 

microhabitat diversity provided by the old trees, multistoried canopies, and decadent 

trees/downed logs within old growth areas are rare across the landscape. The forest plans’ 

direction is to allocate and maintain at least 20 percent old growth forest within each ecosystem 

management unit (EMU). For the purposes of the 4FRI project, the EMU most closely resembles 

the RU and old growth areas were allocated by RU (see table 38 in the silviculture specialist 

report).

Since MSOs, and to some extent northern goshawks, are associated with old growth forests, old 

growth is a subset of those habitats in the 4FRI project (see chapter 1, existing and desired 

conditions for more details). Forty percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area on the Coconino 

NF (128,994 acres) and 38 percent (65,810 acres) of the Kaibab NF are allocated for old growth. 

Current conditions in these areas most closely resemble old growth, but do not currently meet all 

the forest plan parameters of old growth. It is the intent of the 4FRI project to manage these areas 

according to old growth standards, moving them toward mature, diverse forest over time. Similar 

provisions were made for pinyon-juniper habitats. 

Bridge Habitat at the Mid-Scale

Bridge habitat for canopy-dependent wildlife would also occur at the mid-scale in the 4FRI 

project. It is expected that some densely forested areas would be deferred simply due to the 

vagaries of implementation. The 4FRI project also intentionally plans for bridge habitat at the 

mid-scale through its desired conditions, design features/best management practices/mitigation, 

the old and large tree implementation plans, and the silvicultural design and implementation 

guide. Those elements are described below.

Desired conditions for bridge habitat: During the implementation phase of the 4FRI project, 

treatment area specific prescriptions for mechanical thinning would be designed based on the 

desired conditions proposed in this analysis. The following subset of desired conditions helps 

ensure bridge habitat is maintained in the proposed project area (see chapter 1 purpose and need 

for the full set of desired conditions):

• The desired condition is to restore tree density and pattern to the natural range of 

variability, while meeting forest plan requirements for MSO protected and 

target/threshold habitat and goshawk nest areas.

• At the fine scale, the desired condition is a ponderosa pine ecosystem consisting of 

groups of trees that typically range in size from 0.1 acre to 1 acre in size. Tree group size 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

708 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

exceeds 1 acre in size as needed to respond to site-specific conditions such as the 

presence of pre-settlement trees or mature, young trees that are developing old tree 

characteristics.

• Tree groups in the mid-age and older VSS classes have canopies that provide moderate 

to closed conditions and connectivity for wildlife that are dependent on this type of 

habitat. These conditions are widely distributed on the landscape. At the landscape scale 

(extent of ponderosa pine vegetation), all canopy density conditions exist and provide 

for heterogeneity.

• Moderate to closed-canopy conditions (and the connectivity between groups supporting 

these conditions) are met in a variety of ways: habitat for goshawk and MSO, steep 

slopes, buffers for several resources including bald eagle roosts, other raptor nests, 

caves, and special designations that would not be treated (including wilderness and most 

research natural areas).

• There is a need to use management strategies that: (1) promote tree regeneration and 

understory vegetation, (2) move tree canopy density, tree group pattern and interspaces 

toward the historic range of variability, and (3) provide a mix of open, moderately 

closed, and closed-canopy conditions at the fine (group) to landscape (ponderosa pine 

vegetation) scale.

• There is a need to implement uneven-aged management strategies and manage for high 

density, relatively uneven-aged stands in MSO restricted habitat, including 

target/threshold habitats to meet forest plan and MSO recovery plan requirements.

Wildlife design features/best management practices/mitigation measures: These components 

of the project design provide safeguards for wildlife and other resources during the 

implementation phase. Those listed in table 161 are those that best illustrate how treatment area 

design features would result in a well-distributed network of bridge habitat for wildlife across the 

larger landscape. For a more complete list of design features, BMPs, and mitigation, see appendix 

C, as well as the silvicultural design and implementation guide found in appendix D. See also 

table 36 of the wildlife specialists report. Silvicultural design features that contribute to bridge 

habitat are described in greater detail below.

Old and large tree implementation plans: In response to public input from several stakeholders 

requesting a design feature of the proposed action include no cutting of pre-settlement old growth 

trees, the 4FRI project implements an old tree implementation plan. Old trees (approximately 

≥150 years old) would be retained regardless of their diameter within the 4FRI project area. 

Exceptions would be made for threats to human health and safety and those rare circumstances 

where the removal of an old tree is necessary in order to prevent additional habitat degradation. 

Retention of old trees as individuals and groups will contribute significantly to bridge habitat, 

providing old growth structure for wildlife in the short term.

In response to input from some stakeholders, alternative C includes a large tree implementation 

plan. The strategy identifies areas where large, post-settlement trees (≥16 inches d.b.h.) would be 

retained and those exceptions where removal of large, young trees would be necessary to move 

toward ecological desired conditions. Exception categories include the WUI and the following 

ecological sites where young tree encroachment is inhibiting ecological function: seeps and 

springs, riparian areas, wet meadows, grasslands, aspen forest and woodland, pine-oak forest, 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 709

within-stand openings, and heavily stocked stands (with a high basal area) generated by a 

preponderance of large, young trees. Elsewhere, those trees would be retained, adding to the midscale provision of bridge habitat for canopy-dependent wildlife.

Silvicultural design and implementation guide: Vertical and horizontal heterogeneity are 

important components of wildlife habitat in ponderosa pine forests. Restoring variability and 

diversity to forest structure and pattern is a central desired condition of the 4FRI project. The 

silvicultural design and implementation guide (hereafter “implementation guide”; appendix D) is 

intended to translate desired conditions, management direction, and design features into guidance 

for the district silviculturists responsible for writing site-specific prescriptions in the 

implementation phase. The intent is to balance the need for flexibility to adapt to on-the-ground 

realities, while ensuring adequate sideboards to minimize or avoid impacts to important 

resources. Below are some examples of how we would address maintenance of bridge habitat 

through the implementation guide. 

Implementation guide—MSO guidance: Several features of the implementation guide 

treatment design for the MSO would serve as a proxy for other canopy-dependent wildlife. 

Design features for the owl are too numerous to list here, but those listed below serve to illustrate 

specifically how bridge habitat would be maintained at the mid-scale:

• Each PAC has a 100-acre, no treatment area around the known nest or roost sites. 

• Each PAC to be thinned would have an upper diameter limit of trees that may be cut.

• Manage for 110 to 150 square feet of basal area in protected and target/threshold 

habitats, and 70 to 90 square feet basal area in restricted other habitat.

• Individual trees and tree groups would occupy approximately 60 to 75 percent of the 

area within restricted other habitat.

• Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees to sustain as much old forest 

structure as possible across the landscape. Treatments would follow the old tree 

implementation plan.

• No trees larger than 24-inch d.b.h. would be cut. 

• In restricted other habitat, tree groups on average would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre 

with northerly aspects and highly productive microsites having larger average group 

sizes.

• In restricted other habitat, manage for tree groups with different age classes by retaining 

individual and clumps of vigorous ponderosa pine seedlings, saplings and poles within 

the larger mid-aged, mature, or old tree groups. 

• In restricted other habitat, interspace width between tree groups would average from 25 

to 60 feet with a maximum width of 200 feet. 

• Manage for large oaks and pine snags.
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

710 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 161. Design features, BMPs, and mitigation measures contributing to bridge habitat

Species/Resource Description

Bald Eagle Nests No mechanical treatments would occur within a 300-foot radius of bald eagle nest 

trees.

Bald Eagle Roosts No mechanical treatments will occur around confirmed bald eagle roost sites (300′

radius around roosts on the Coconino NF and a 10-chain radius on the Kaibab NF).

VSS 4, 5, and 6 Within group density – Manage mid-aged tree groups for a range of density and 

structural characteristics by thinning approximately 50 percent of the mid-aged groups 

to the lower range of desired stocking conditions, approximately 20 percent each to 

the middle and upper range of desired stocking conditions, and approximately 10

percent remain unthinned.

Within group structure – Enhance and maintain mid-aged, mature, or old group 

structure by retaining individual and clumps of vigorous ponderosa pine seedlings, 

saplings, and poles within the larger group.

Caves and Sinkholes A 300-foot, no mechanical treatment buffer unless mitigated by logical topographical 

breaks would be designated around cave entrances and sink hole rims to protect cave 

ecosystems and reduce disturbance to bats.

Dependable Waters Hiding cover would be maintained near dependable waters by not targeting drainages 

for interspaces and openings and through implementation of watershed BMPs.

Great Blue Herons No dominant or codominant trees would be cut in rookeries. Nest trees will be prepped 

prior to prescribed burning.

MSO Trees greater than 24-inch d.b.h. would not be harvested.

Mixed Conifer 4FRI activities would not include mechanical or fire treatments in the mixed conifer 

inclusions within the ponderosa pine forest (e.g., nest and roost buffers in Bear Seep 

and Red Raspberry PACs). Similarly, islands of ponderosa pine within mixed conifer 

forest would not be treated as part of this project.

Northern Leopard Frogs A no-treatment buffer (no thinning, no direct ignition) 1⁄4-mile distant from tanks in the 

vicinity of known northern leopard frog sites, or a buffer designated along logical 

topographic breaks.

Northern Leopard Frogs A 200-ft protection zone (100 feet either side of stream course) would be established 

around designated stream courses for northern leopard frogs. There would be no 

thinning and no direct ignition of prescribed burning within the protection zones. 

Designated skid trail crossings through the buffer zones are allowed.

Raptor Nests No mechanical treatment buffers would be designated around raptor nests. Sharpshinned hawk nests = 10 acres, Cooper’s hawk nests = 15 acres, osprey nests = 20 

acres, other raptors = 50 acres.

Snags Emphasize retention of snags ≥18-inch d.b.h. 

Snags Retain trees ≥18-inch d.b.h. with dead tops, cavities, and lightning strikes wherever 

possible to provide cavity nesting/foraging habitat (i.e., the living dead). 

Streamside Management 

Zones

On areas to be prescribed burned, establish filter strips (also known as streamside 

management zones). Applies to riparian and nonriparian stream courses. Deferral 

widths range from 35 to 120 feet on each side of the stream course.

Turkeys Retain medium to high canopy cover in pine stringers in the pinyon-juniper transition 

zone and target low-severity burns to retain yellow pine and roosting cover.
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 711

Species/Resource Description

Wildlife Cover Gambel oak, juniper, and pinyon species may only be cut as necessary to facilitate 

logging operations (skid trails and landings) and by design as follows:

Within UEA, IT, SI, and WUI treatments, pinyon/juniper seedling/sapling and 

young/mid-aged trees may be cut within a 40-foot radius of individual or groups of old 

ponderosa pine (as defined in the old tree implementation strategy).

Within savanna and WUI PJ mechanical treatment areas, pinyon/juniper 

seedling/sapling and young/mid-aged trees may be cut.

Implementation guide—northern goshawk habitat guidance: Several features of the treatment 

design for the northern goshawk would serve as a proxy for other canopy-dependent wildlife. 

Design features are too numerous to list here, but a key few are highlighted to illustrate how 

bridge habitat would be maintained. Relevant design features from table 161 are not repeated 

below. 

• Treatments are designed to manage for old age trees, following the old tree 

implementation plan.

• Treatments would strive to attain an overall stand average density ranging from 40 to 90 

square feet of basal area and 15 to 40 percent of maximum SDI. Density would vary 

within this range depending on treatment type, intensity, and existing stand structure. 

• Tree group density would be managed to meet the canopy cover requirement of 40 plus 

percent within mid-aged forest (VSS 4), mature forest (VSS 5), and old forest (VSS 6) 

tree groups and to assure that immature tree groups (VSS 2 and 3) are managed to 

maintain tree stocking necessary to provide for desired canopy cover as the groups 

mature.

• To achieve overall stand average density targets, basal area and SDI within tree groups 

would often need to exceed the average target. Table 162 illustrates how this could work 

for basal area (see the implementation guide for greater detail). For example, a unit with 

a treatment intensity of 10 to 25, with an objective of 20 percent interspace and 80 

percent treed, with 70 percent of treed area as groups and individuals and 10 percent as 

regeneration, and an overall target basal area of 60 would require the tree groups to 

average 86 basal area.

• Within group structure specific to mid-aged to old classes (VSS 4 to 6) includes open 

understories, interlocking tree crowns, abundant large limbs, and shade. 

• Tree groups, on average, would range in size from 0.1 to 1 acre. Overall average group 

size would vary within this range depending on existing stand structure and presettlement tree evidence.

• Maximum interspace width of 200 feet. 

• Maximum regeneration opening size of 4 acres or 200 feet wide. 

• One group of reserve trees, three to five trees per group, would be left in created 

regeneration openings larger than 1 acre in size.

• Manage for large oaks.

• Within the proposed ADGF research areas, tree group size is dependent on experimental 

design and would range in size from 1 to 15 acres. 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

712 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Table 162. Excerpt from section D of the 4FRI implementation guidelines

Treatment 

Intensity

Percent of 

Area

Percent of Area with 

Tree Cover

Average Group Basal Area to Achieve 

Overall Basal Area

Interspace

Tree Groups & 

Individuals

Regeneration 40 50 60 70 80 90

10–25 10 90 90 0 56 67 78 89 100

85 5 59 71 82 94

80 10 63 75 88 100

75 15 67 80 93 107

70 20 71 86 100 114

15 85 85 0 59 71 82 94 106

80 5 63 75 88 100

75 10 67 80 93 107

70 15 71 86 100 114

65 20 77 92 108 123

20 80 80 0 63 75 88 100 113

75 5 67 80 93 107

70 10 71 86 100 114

65 15 77 92 108 123

60 20 83 100 117 133

In summary, bridge habitat would be managed for at the mid-scale in four key ways: 

1. Desired conditions that strive to attain the full range of natural variability which would 

include areas for canopy-dependent wildlife, 

2. Design features/BMPs/mitigation measures that result in a well-distributed mosaic of 

small-scale deferrals in an otherwise mechanically treated landscape,

3. Implementation guidance for MSO habitat that retains higher forest density and canopy 

cover relative to the surrounding landscape, and

4. Implementation guidance for the northern goshawks that allows for higher density within 

tree groups given the contribution of interspaces and openings to overall stand averages. 

Conclusions About Bridge Habitat in the 4FRI Project

Closed-canopy, high-density forest conditions are currently common in the 4FRI project area. To 

achieve ecological objectives and modify landscape-scale fire behavior, prevalence of those dense 

forests must be significantly reduced. Given the evolutionary history of canopy-dependent 

wildlife on this landscape, we can assume that closed-canopy conditions were present within the 

natural range of variability. The question of how much of the pre-settlement landscape was in this 

condition remains unanswered, but the literature suggests that this was not the predominant 
Appendix G – Bridge Habitat

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 713

condition. Nevertheless, it is the intent of the 4FRI project to provide bridge habitat for canopydependent wildlife to span the time between restoration treatments and achievement of desired 

conditions. 

Potentially 13 percent of the landscape within the 4FRI project boundary would be deferred from 

treatment. Nearly 42 percent of the ponderosa pine treatment area would remain in a moderately 

closed to closed condition after treatment. Seventeen percent would remain in closed condition 

after treatment. Restoration units near the Mogollon Rim would provide the greatest percentage 

of bridge habitat after treatment. Old growth allocations account for 38 percent of the ponderosa 

pine treatment area and are well distributed across the landscape. A patch-mosaic of small 

deferrals would be created all across the 4FRI project area to provide safeguards for wildlife 

features such as nests and hiding cover. Implementation guidance in MSO and northern goshawk 

habitats includes provisions for higher density and canopy cover relative to the surrounding 

landscape. It is our assumption that all of these measures would provide adequate bridge habitat 

for canopy-dependent wildlife. Monitoring would be an important test of this assumption, and 

adaptive management would be employed if outcomes prove otherwise.

DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs 715

Index 

Air Quality .. iv, xi, 24, 36, 37, 47, 54, 56, 62, 

87, 101 

Alternative A

No Action ..... i, v, vi, xi, xii, 29, 62, 94, 95, 

100, 102, 103 

Alternative B

Proposed Action .. iii, iv, v, vi, vii, xii, 1, 8, 

29, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 

45, 47, 48, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

85, 87, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 98, 100, 101, 

102, 103, 107 

Alternative C

Preferred Alternative ..i, iv, v, vi, ix, xi, xii, 

29, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 

50, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 70, 

73, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 

89, 94, 95, 103 

Alternative D ... iv, v, vi, xi, xii, 8, 36, 37, 39, 

40, 41, 47, 48, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 

64, 70, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89, 

91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 107 

Alternatives ............................................... 47 

Actions Common to Alternatives B-D ... 62 

Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

Study ...................................... 48, 54, 56 

Appendices 

Appendix A

Map Packet ......................................... 82 

Appendix A, Map Packet ............. 1, 70, 89 

Appendix B, Forest Plan Amendments ... 1, 

8, 41, 48, 64, 80, 81, 87, 88 

Appendix C, Design Features, BMPs, and 

Mitigation ... vi, 1, 47, 48, 63, 76, 85, 92, 

107 

Appendix D, Alternative B-D 

Implementation Planvi, 1, 40, 48, 63, 73 

Appendix E, Alternative B through D 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

Plan ......................... vi, 1, 39, 40, 48, 63 

Appendix F, Cumulative Effects ............. 1 

Climate Change .................................. xii, 37

Forest Health

Insect and Disease ................ xi, 17, 18, 98 

Forest Plan Management Direction ... 14, 29, 

30 

Forest Resiliency

Fire Behavior iii, xi, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 

54, 55, 56, 71, 83, 90, 99, 100, 103, 107 

Forest Structure and Spatial Pattern

Age and Size Class Diversity . vi, 9, 11, 12, 

13, 37, 38, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 63, 

95, 97 

goshawk habitat. viii, ix, xi, 11, 12, 13, 15, 

38, 39, 49, 50, 52, 57, 70, 76, 77, 81, 

82, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93, 97, 98, 103 

MSO habitat ........... viii, 13, 14, 24, 50, 97

Old Growth ......................................15, 40 

Stand Density and Habitat Components . 9 

Goshawk and Mexican spotted owl ... iii, 

xi, xii, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 26, 50, 52, 

54, 71, 83, 89 

Tree Density and Canopy Openness .. 9, 11 

Goshawk Habitativ, vi, 9, 11, 38, 47, 50, 

63, 96 

Other Required Disclosures 

Tribes ...............................................35, 36 
Index

716 DEIS for the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative, Coconino and Kaibab NFs

Project Background ................................. 7, 8 

Project Location .......................................... 4 

Range ..................... 26, 31, 32, 33, 54, 55, 56 

Recreation

Settings and Opportunities ..................... 31 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

 ...................................................... 25, 103 

Socio-Economics 

Population ... xii, 21, 40, 41, 42, 49, 54, 64, 

80, 81, 88 

Soil Productivity and Watershed Function .. i, 

iii, vi, xi, 9, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 48, 51, 

52, 54, 56, 59, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 80, 87, 

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107 

Ephemeral Channels ........................ 27, 28 

Miles of streamcourses ............ 25, 65, 107 

Springs ................................................... 27 

Water Yield ......................... iv, 39, 47, 102 

Transportation .... vi, 7, 28, 29, 31, 41, 63, 65, 

73, 80, 87, 100 

Tribal Relations ......................................... 36 

Vegetation Diversity and Composition 

Aspen .... vi, vii, 19, 32, 41, 47, 50, 56, 57, 

59, 62, 63, 70, 73, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88, 

89, 94, 98 

Gambel Oak xii, 19, 33, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 

98, 101 

Grasslands .... iii, xi, 20, 24, 31, 32, 33, 37, 

38, 50, 53, 56, 57, 98 

Pine-Sage21, 50, 53, 54, 56, 76, 85, 92, 99 

Wildlife

Habitat Connectivity .......................... 1, 11 

Management Indicator Species ....... xii, 35

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive 

Species

Mexican spotted owlv, vi, viii, xi, xii, 8, 

11, 14, 15, 21, 24, 29, 31, 38, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 47, 50, 52, 53, 57, 62, 63, 64, 

70, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 

89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98 

Northern Goshawk iv, xi, 11, 12, 13, 15, 

31, 35, 38, 40, 41, 49, 52, 53, 57, 64, 

70, 76, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 

97, 98, 103